PDA

View Full Version : The Minimum PC Requirements are wrong!



nithilus
11-27-2014, 03:58 PM
MINIMUM Requirements:

Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz
Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 7970





My Spec:

Processor: Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.3 GHz
Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 7950



Now I know my spec is close to the minimum so me being able to play the game isn't that shocking. However, not only can I play the game. But I can play on the following settings:




Graphic settings with less than Minimum Requirements:

Resolution: 1360x768 (My TV's resolution)
Environment Quality: High
Texture Quality: High
Ambient Occlusion: SSAO
Anti-Aliasing Quality: MSAAx4
Bloom: Yes



Correct me if I am wrong but It's always been my understanding that to play a game using the minimum requirements it would mean having to play on low settings. Yet here I am with less than minimum requirements and playing on pretty high settings. The game runs smooth and I have not had anything go wrong.

Where the minimum specs just pulled out of a hat?

Are we being conned into buying new pc rigs that we don't need?

It just seems like poor marketing to make people think their pc's can't run the game when they can.

I almost went and spent a load of money upgrading my PC when I don't need to, the game runs fine and looks beautiful on my supposedly less than minimum requirements rig.

Anyone else got any opinions?
Maybe you upgraded your pc for this game when you might not have needed to?
Maybe you think you cant play this game when you can?

If you have anything to add go for it. Also if i'm wrong about what minimum requirements means then please let me know, because i feel like I was almost conned into buying a new PC rig that I didn't need.

FourthWallGames
11-27-2014, 04:44 PM
You can run it yes, but at what frame rate? I have a pretty hefty pc with everything on very high and no anti aliasing it often still drops below 60fps (who's is the minimum acceptable frame rate in my opinion). Some points it is at over 100fps but the drops below 60 is not acceptable.

A much slower pc could run it but not at an acceptable level. Lots of people are happy with 30 or 45fps but that is the problem, developers look at those people and think it is ok.. for real pc players 60 is the minimum.

This is in no way a go at you, just my opinion. The minimum settings 're aiming for a decent fps, although to achieve 60 I feel the minimum specs should be even higher, then again I am an elitist when it comes to pc games, so Ubisoft min specs are most likely not aiming for 60fps.

nithilus
11-27-2014, 05:02 PM
My FPS on those settings is currently around the 50-60 fps mark. If i lower the settings i can achieve 100+fps. But my point is with my pc having less than the minimum spec i shouldn't be able to run the game at all! And when you compare it to the consoles being limited to 40fps it just boggles me that they would state such high requirements unnecessarily.

I understand that you are an elitist but the game is still more than playable to your average player on a less than minimum spec pc which seems odd that they would make people believe they cant play the game when they can.

USAdystopia
11-28-2014, 01:10 AM
My FPS on those settings is currently around the 50-60 fps mark. If i lower the settings i can achieve 100+fps. But my point is with my pc having less than the minimum spec i shouldn't be able to run the game at all! And when you compare it to the consoles being limited to 40fps it just boggles me that they would state such high requirements unnecessarily.

I understand that you are an elitist but the game is still more than playable to your average player on a less than minimum spec pc which seems odd that they would make people believe they cant play the game when they can.

If you don't know what the difference is between a "k" version and non-k or the difference between a 7950 and 7970...maybe PC hardware discussions are beyond your ken at this time.

Altair1789
11-28-2014, 01:13 AM
System requirements are pretty inaccurate. I run this game pretty well with a GTX 750 Ti and an FX 4300. Settings:
Environment: Medium
Texture: High
Ambient Occlusion: SSAO
AA: FXAA
Bloom: On
I usually get around 30 fps

NightmareGK13
11-28-2014, 01:27 AM
My only opinion is that the game is perfectly playable and I have a lousy gtx 550 ti, rest of the specs on my end are ok tho, above minimum :P

hlchade
11-28-2014, 03:02 AM
... I find it difficult to believe that there is a con game in play, there's simply no reason for there to be one--I doubt Ubisoft gets some kind of kickback from the hardware companies. :)


But my point is with my pc having less than the minimum spec i shouldn't be able to run the game at all

Unfortunately, there's really no set in stone definition for what you can expect out of a "minimum" spec'ed machine, but I don't think that the commonly held definition is not being able to run it at all. Rather, we're frequently told that one can expect "acceptable performance" ... and of course what is "acceptable" depends on who you ask. Another point is that the minimum list could be comprised of the lowest hardware that they tested, and thus they aren't willing to give full-fledged support to hardware that falls under that threshold regardless of whether it runs (or not).

On a related note, for some years it's been pretty standard to run PC games at 1080p, and you've listed your resolution at your TV's native 720p, so technically you may have already made the trade of having higher performance for lower res if whomever writes the requirements is using that as a metric. Remember that current gen consoles (Xbox One & PS4) are running jaguar chips paired with GPUs that, in pc terms, are similar to Radeon HD7790/HD7870s, and they are running the game at 900p with 30fps (with drops). Assassin's Creed is fairly notorious in being CPU dependant, and you're running a better CPU and generally better GPU. I don't know if there has a been a comparison of what the equivalent Unity console settings are, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you're getting 50-60fps/720p given the better CPU whilst pushing fewer pixels.

strigoi1958
11-28-2014, 03:41 AM
But no company ever states what is their idea of satisfactory at minimum or recommended so nobody can say they are wrong. If Ubi feel the only way to appreciate Unity at a minimum is 1080p and high preset and 80 to 100 fps then you do not reach THEIR minimum requirements even though you may well exceed YOUR minimum expectations.

Companies state their requirements but it is just a guideline for whatever they think is needed.

nithilus
11-29-2014, 01:51 PM
If you don't know what the difference is between a "k" version and non-k or the difference between a 7950 and 7970...maybe PC hardware discussions are beyond your ken at this time.

I do know the difference and yes I know i reach minimum spec when you look at it closely but my point was not only can i play on minimum spec but rather i can put the settings on high on a minimum spec machine.

I didn't come here to be insulted rather to see what other people experience has been with this game and maybe if somebody had a helpful answer for me rather than just wanting to give unwarranted insults.

Here is the sort of answer I was looking for unlike your totally pointless response that you should have kept to yourself.


Unfortunately, there's really no set in stone definition for what you can expect out of a "minimum" spec'ed machine, but I don't think that the commonly held definition is not being able to run it at all. Rather, we're frequently told that one can expect "acceptable performance" ... and of course what is "acceptable" depends on who you ask. Another point is that the minimum list could be comprised of the lowest hardware that they tested, and thus they aren't willing to give full-fledged support to hardware that falls under that threshold regardless of whether it runs (or not).

On a related note, for some years it's been pretty standard to run PC games at 1080p, and you've listed your resolution at your TV's native 720p, so technically you may have already made the trade of having higher performance for lower res if whomever writes the requirements is using that as a metric. Remember that current gen consoles (Xbox One & PS4) are running jaguar chips paired with GPUs that, in pc terms, are similar to Radeon HD7790/HD7870s, and they are running the game at 900p with 30fps (with drops). Assassin's Creed is fairly notorious in being CPU dependant, and you're running a better CPU and generally better GPU. I don't know if there has a been a comparison of what the equivalent Unity console settings are, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you're getting 50-60fps/720p given the better CPU whilst pushing fewer pixels.

Thank you for that answer by the way HLCHADE it was very helpful

drop_toya
11-29-2014, 05:35 PM
My only opinion is that the game is perfectly playable and I have a lousy gtx 550 ti, rest of the specs on my end are ok tho, above minimum :P

Maybe that's because you have a nvidia gpu, this game runs like total crap on amd, i can't even get 30 fps at 720p :(