Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Better be better than yesterday
Joined
·
4,098 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Remember?
Remember when Lucasarts said that SW-Force Unleashed won't be released on PC?
Remember when they say our rigs couldn't handle it cause of the "Euphoria Engine"?

Now the title is coming to our machines on its "ultimate sith edition".:rolleyes:

And here are the PC specs:
Minimal system requirements of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed: Ultimate Sith Edition
• Operating system: Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista SP2, Windows 7
• CPU: Dual-core CPU with 2.4 GHz (Intel core 2 Duo or Athlon X2)
• RAM: 2 GiByte
• Graphics card: Shader model 3 with 256 MiByte VRAM (Radeon HD 2900 or Geforce 8800)
HDD: 24 GByte + 1 GByte swap file

Recommended system requirements of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed: Ultimate Sith Edition
• CPU: Intel core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 5200+
• Graphics card: Radeon HD 4870 or Geforce 9800 GT

Supported graphics cards:
• Ati Radeon HD 2900, 3850, 3870, 4850, 4870
• Nvidia Geforce 8800, 9600, 9800, 260, 280
Source.

a 4000$ rig huh?:lol:

Anyway...Optimizing is not in their mind. And when you know that Aspyr made the conversion (Thoses who have played Dark Sector and Web of Shadows on PC know what I'm talking about), meaby they could have let PS3/X360 players have the exclusivity?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,692 Posts
Isn't there another game that's supposed to be 50GB and will "break the Internet" ? :evil:
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
0 Posts
words cant explain the shock on my face right now.






so ill just quote it a few times, sorry but damn thats the nicest way i can discribe this right now.

please be a typo or just what in the name of hell is on.

seriously there now just freaking messing with us....right? or is this some weird idea to prove that they were "right" about the euphoria engine.
Is that really so surprising? Some games like FFXI and WoW take up about 15 a piece.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,166 Posts
Is that really so surprising? Some games like FFXI and WoW take up about 15 a piece.
to me it is,

but i havent bought or looked at system specs for new games for a while (a few years if you really want to know) so yeh my bad, sorry about that whole over reaction.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
0 Posts
WoW will probably take up about that same amount of space, once the next expansion rolls out[note: I don't play it anymore, but I did for quite a while, so I know how big the game is. :lol:].
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
FFXI isn't a game. its a decrepit insult to name Final Fantasy.
 

·
The one and only
Joined
·
3,660 Posts
^^ agreed. Tried the trial once, and there was no one playing. the newbiew levels were empty (worst part of MMOs)

I hate the shard system in mmos, kills the awesomeness of the population
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,692 Posts
FFXI isn't a game. its a decrepit insult to name Final Fantasy.
Well they're repeating that mistake... :angry:

"There's a sucker buying an MMO every second"... :evil:

Hey, lets sick Australian Politicians on to MMOs... Global Ban! :dead: :thumb:
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
That's not a $4000 PC. I got mine for ~$1700 (that's an estimate, but it's in that ballpark), and that was about a year and three quarters ago (so almost two), and considering some of that cost comes from the monitor and speakers, and also from upgrading the cooler, some fans, the GPU, and the CPU (meaning I bought each twice), then it's not hard too see that I had a PC that was probably ~$1200 and was stronger than those recommendations almost two years ago. You can probably get the equivalent for what, ~$800 now?

Edit: Also, I notice they list "GeForce 8800" as one of the minimum requirements, and then list the GeForce 9800GT as a recommended GPU. What the hell? The 9800GT is the 8800GT. Unless they're talking about the older 8800GTS (they need to specify, 8800 alone is too broad), then there's no way that arrangement makes sense, because four of the five 8800 cards (8800GT, 8800GTS 512MB, 8800GTX, and 8800 Ultra) are at least as strong, if not stronger than, their "recommended" 9800GT. Even if that is referencing the older 8800GTS, it doesn't make sense for the gap between the minimum and the recommended to be that small. According to the 4870 being the other recommendation, the GeForce GTX260 should be the other recommendation, not the GeForce 9800GT.

So they know nothing of optimization, or hardware. Wonderful. Sounds like a game to buy...

Oh, and I'm aware of the 8800GS, but that's now the 9600GSO.
 

·
Heroes Might& Magic Champ
Joined
·
4,713 Posts
So these developers intentionally coding the game poorly. How much of a deviation is it to to take it from the xbox360 to the pc?

Where were the days when a ps3/360 game would run smooth on a 8800GT(aka 9800GT) at 1440x900?
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
That died with Grand Theft Auto IV, it seems. I remember everyone here saying the Core 2 Duo E6600 (or similar) and 8800GT combination, with 2GB of RAM, would set them up for three or four years with most games being ports of some sort. Admittedly, for the most part, it still is, but 2GB is quickly becoming low and the 8800GT isn't what it once was. We couldn't expect them to write in a Pentium 4 for the minimum, and the Athlon X2 or low speed Core 2 Duo for the recommendation forever either.

Then again, the Playstation 3/XBox 360 both have more than two cores. We all know the mid-high/high range PC CPUs are all still capable of more than running those systems games if done right. We've seen it. But with more cores, and maybe this is happening with RAM too, becoming more popular, it let's them be lazy.
 

·
Better be better than yesterday
Joined
·
4,098 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
So these developers intentionally coding the game poorly. How much of a deviation is it to to take it from the xbox360 to the pc?
We all know the mid-high/high range PC CPUs are all still capable of more than running those systems games if done right. We've seen it. But with more cores, and maybe this is happening with RAM too, becoming more popular, it let's them be lazy.
I don't think they are doing it intentionally. Their lazyness is due to the fact this is another society than the one which developped the game which is making the port. This PC version wasn't expected even from Lucasarts.

It is very difficult to optimize the code you don't have written. The engine of the game has not, IMO, be thought for simple cross-platform ports. Aspyr is globally just trying to make the game run on most PCs, no more no less.

Thus my original question: Why not simply not release the game on PC?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,340 Posts
FFXI isn't a game. its a decrepit insult to name Final Fantasy.
No, Enix was the insult to Final Fantasy. Everything else are just subsidiary insults we can trace back to Enix.

I think the only thing that truly annoys me about the PC port is that it's way too late. The sales are going to suck because most of us have already played it for one of the consoles, and Lucasarts will just be another douche company who ends up saying, "see? there's no market for pc games"
 

·
...and now they do.
Joined
·
20,002 Posts
Now now... Square was hardly perfect before Enix came along. While I do like to blame all their misfortunes on Enix, even before the merger, Square's non-FF titles were hit or miss.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
Yeah, but now their Final Fantasy titles are hit or miss also (not withstanding the fact that they sell well and get good reviews at least half based on the name alone).

No, Squaresoft wasn't perfect, but it was much better than Square-Enix is. I'm not blaming it all on Enix either. They, too, were better alone. I really do think both companies were better off separate. Or perhaps it's all just coincidnece that both made great stuff when competitors, and stopped doing things to that level after merging.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top