It doesn't even load, let alone run!

[./thefinalcut]

cs = crappy ****

of course weak rigs can run them XD

You, my friend, aren't funny.

So I tried the Bioshock demo last night, lowest settings possible.
After the cutscene intro, I moved forward a foot, and it crashed.

[Goobers]

cs = crappy ****

of course weak rigs can run them XD

as much as i hate Valve, i usually refrain from saying stuff like that... there are way too many Valve fanboys.

[Para]

cs = crappy ****

of course weak rigs can run them XD

[Benfica]

Your post is confusing and not accurate then nor now. How can someone not post on forums and yet have a sig? How is XP dying and how is it outdated? XP runs most games of today just fine. Vista is the one that needs updating to live up to its promises. Hardware requirements have been said to scale just fine, like the rest of the games by Epic. So, what is your point?

- Nope, my point is that most people don't register on forums, and the ones that do it, don't put their specs on the sig.
- About XP I was sarcastic, as I said on a previous post.

[Kyllian]

90% use the dying and outdated XP.

If it's dying and outdated, why are so many people(and compaines) switching back to it from Vista?
Hell, M$ even released a "patch" making it easier to switch back to XP

[DGUnreal]

When UT2003 first shipped I couldn't run it on max settings either back then.
I didn't get "Holy S***!" settings until about a year later when I upgraded.
But I usually sit at the top-end hardware one generation behind because it is usually silly to spend all of the money on the current bleeding edge hardware.

Go to places like NCIX and you can get a decent high-end system that will run UT3 fine for $1500 to $2000. Just stay away from the SLI and other esoteric hardware and you shouldn't go over this price.
The Core2Duo, 2GB, X1950Pro I have here runs BioShock just fine.

As a level designer with UE3, the engine runs fine on my studio workstation P4-3.2HT, 2GB, ATI X1950Pro (I've only ran it on that workstation). I doubt that workstation will run UT3 on highest settings, but I'm sure it will run it fine.

Just wait for the demo... I'm sure it is only a few weeks away...

[Frogger]

pretty sure system requirements haven't been published yet...what's all the fuss?

[intentsly]

Huh?

Reading the UT3 score calculator and graphics cards threads, I remembered about this:
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

RAM >1GB: 30%
2 or more CPUs/cores: 25%

Intel CPU speeds are a mess, because Core and P4 are mixed
AMD speeds: better than 3800+ SC or 4600+ DC : 8%

GF8800: 4,56%
Cards with shader 3: 53%. Even if it support SM2, 6% are Radeon9800 or better.
Display 4:3 : 83.6% (25% have 19'' or above)
AGP: 40%
SLI/Crossfire: 1.2%

Creative X-Fi: 2.89%
Separate card or NForceAudio: ~20%

Windows Vista: 8%
Vista with DX10: 2.31%


So let's see:
75% don't have enough RAM, 75% of the CPUs are outdated, 92% of AMD CPUs are too slow, 47% don't load Bioshock, 80% have soundcards that are a CPU hog, 90% use the dying and outdated XP.

Who doesn't have an high-end rig, often don't post on forums, put the specs on their sig or talk much about it.

Your post is confusing and not accurate then nor now. How can someone not post on forums and yet have a sig? How is XP dying and how is it outdated? XP runs most games of today just fine. Vista is the one that needs updating to live up to its promises. Hardware requirements have been said to scale just fine, like the rest of the games by Epic. So, what is your point?

I'm not sure where I fit in on this, but I could run the RoboBlitz demo just fine, so I think I'll be able to play UT3 at least in med settings.

Yes you should be fine. I also just wanted to comment on your sig: Be careful how you judge people based on their punctuation etc.. I for one tend to like to play with words and yet still make sense. Sumtimes out of sarchasm

I feel unless they tweak graphic settings too minimum (for best frames, competative play) Epic is somewhat shooting themselves in the foot, people need 2k - 3k rigs to even run it ; it's sad, but becoming very true =(
-Manta-

Untrue, haven't you been reading the statements by various Epic folk saying that this game scales well. They've been saying this repeatedly for a LONG time now. They've taken this long to develop it, why make it so no one can play it? What sense would it make?

People with on-board sound are also probably running XP, and that will free some resources compared to Vista. Lose some win some. =)

On board sound is just wrong in every sense, at least the older forms of it anyway. It has been a serious resource hog and has stolen game performance repeatedly. Newer chipsets have been better, but still nothing like having a dedicated soundcard. Vista is not worth even booting alone. XP gets things done and plays games well. I'm still not sold on it, heck isn't M$ already talking about their next OS? (I wonder why) People are still buying laptops that come with Vista, wiping the drives, and installing XP. That just screams to me that Vista is sucking A$$!

Intentsly

[Vectorspace]

Didn't the Epic guys say in the IRC interview that we would be surprised at how low the minimum specs will be?

I don't doubt that a powerhouse rig will be needed to play the game at close to the level of detail seen in the media released so far, but UE in the Unreal games has always been tremendously scalable in terms of how low you can tune the graphics for lower spec systems, why should UT3 be any different?

One way or the other, the demo will give us a good idea.

[Benfica]

Sorry, quick reply.
About XP was being sarcastic of course. And I have a good enough rig, I scored 19 or whatever that was.

Note that the survey was updated on "August 21", and I'd really like that dudes that play CS and similar **** would ditch it and play UT3.

[Molgan]

Onboard AC97's are notoriously CPU 'heavy' and will cost you a few % of performance in CPU-heavy games like UT series have always been.

People with on-board sound are also probably running XP, and that will free some resources compared to Vista. Lose some win some. =)

[Lert]

and sound cards don't matter.

Yes they do. The difference is not exactly huge, but with a high-end sound card the sound is calculated by the soundcard instead of the CPU, which frees the CPU up for running the game. Onboard AC97's are notoriously CPU 'heavy' and will cost you a few % of performance in CPU-heavy games like UT series have always been.

[CreepyD]

That survey was started in May, so a lot of people may have since upgraded.
Also yes, a lot of steam users play CS, so don't to upgrade.
And upgrading does not cost a fortune like it once did, you can get a perfectly decent system for less than a PS3.
1 tip is NEVER buy top of the range, always just above mid range where the price per power is best while still getting you a good system that plays the latest stuff for 1 year+

[da ghost]

You don't need a dual-core processor to play UT3... and sound cards don't matter.

And... OH NOES, they're gonna be running XP... their performance are teh suck...

looks like OP needs to learn about computers.

[Molgan]

So let's see:
75% don't have enough RAM, 75% of the CPUs are outdated, 92% of AMD CPUs are too slow, 47% don't load Bioshock, 80% have soundcards that are a CPU hog, 90% use the dying and outdated XP.

You are exaggerating quite a bit, sure a lot of people wont be able to come near high settings, but you don't need a top notch PC and the latest OS to be able to enjoy UT3. Calm down and don't scare people off hehe.