Deep Silver Delivers Metro: Last Light PC Requirements

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Ready with my 3930K and Titan.

Just need to get the CPU under sub-zero cooling and it'll go further than 5.1ghz.

Honestly I wish more games would just ramp up the maximum graphics, as long as the game runs well and looks good even on less powerful hardware there is no reason not to want more eyecandy for the peeps with the machines to run it.

hmmm time to SLi up my 560ti

Weird. It tells me I only get recommended, when I hit every bullet point on optimum. It then tells me to buy a 27", 120Hz 3D monitor to replace my current 27", 144Hz 3D-capable monitor.

nVidia be crazy.

It's a Russian game. Of course it's optimized like it was made by medieval monkeys. I'm not wondering about the graphics card requirements. I'm sure it will choke on some high-end systems.

That said, I'm baffled by the 8 GB RAM as optimum. I mean sure, once you have a high-end system, 8 GB RAM makes sense. But what the heck does the game need it for if it can run on a 2 GB system?

romxxii:
Weird. It tells me I only get recommended, when I hit every bullet point on optimum. It then tells me to buy a 27", 120Hz 3D monitor to replace my current 27", 144Hz 3D-capable monitor.

nVidia be crazy.

Makes sense kinda, sometimes things will look at bleeding edge hardware and start to hyperventilate and implode. SimTower did that when I booted it up on my modern PC :P

Wait what? My 5 year old laptop can run it and it couldnt run last metro? what is this i dont even.....

DTWolfwood:

I need to have $1000 graphics card to run the game optimally?! :sigh: looks like its time to break that bank ._.

Optimium usually means max settings on everything, and if they got something like 64xAA it surely will ask for that kind of card. does not mean any sane person really need it. 4xAA is perfectly fine for most games. I play most with none, as its a resource hog for questionable improvement.
Also remmeber how fast graphic technology moves(not to mention speculation of a boom during the nextgen console launch, to keep PCs way ahead graphically), in 5 years you will be looking at "titan" and thinking "meh this is slow ass GPU i cant run anything on".

Sgt. Sykes:
It's a Russian game. Of course it's optimized like it was made by medieval monkeys. I'm not wondering about the graphics card requirements. I'm sure it will choke on some high-end systems.

That said, I'm baffled by the 8 GB RAM as optimum. I mean sure, once you have a high-end system, 8 GB RAM makes sense. But what the heck does the game need it for if it can run on a 2 GB system?

beign able to keep a lot of information, especially big space ones like textures that are used often in RAM makes heaven come to earth. Though mostly strategy games optimize that (they need to run a lot of processes calculating troop patchfinding and whatnto in background and thus put a lot in ram so they dont need to acess the algorythm over and over agian from HDD, like CIV games used to save ALL models into ram, then on huge maps the ram woudl get so overfilled the game would crash. they fixed that in oen of CIV4 patches and forward whne ti flushes models that thep layer hasnt seen for a while at each (auto)save. but give a vanilla CIV4 8GB of ram and it will THRIVE in it. granted, this can be mostly attributed to poor programming, but its not like modern game makers care much for optimization now do they.

Strazdas:
Wait what? My 5 year old laptop can run it and it couldnt run last metro? what is this i dont even.....

DTWolfwood:

I need to have $1000 graphics card to run the game optimally?! :sigh: looks like its time to break that bank ._.

Optimium usually means max settings on everything, and if they got something like 64xAA it surely will ask for that kind of card. does not mean any sane person really need it. 4xAA is perfectly fine for most games. I play most with none, as its a resource hog for questionable improvement.
Also remmeber how fast graphic technology moves(not to mention speculation of a boom during the nextgen console launch, to keep PCs way ahead graphically), in 5 years you will be looking at "titan" and thinking "meh this is slow ass GPU i cant run anything on".

Sgt. Sykes:
It's a Russian game. Of course it's optimized like it was made by medieval monkeys. I'm not wondering about the graphics card requirements. I'm sure it will choke on some high-end systems.

That said, I'm baffled by the 8 GB RAM as optimum. I mean sure, once you have a high-end system, 8 GB RAM makes sense. But what the heck does the game need it for if it can run on a 2 GB system?

beign able to keep a lot of information, especially big space ones like textures that are used often in RAM makes heaven come to earth. Though mostly strategy games optimize that (they need to run a lot of processes calculating troop patchfinding and whatnto in background and thus put a lot in ram so they dont need to acess the algorythm over and over agian from HDD, like CIV games used to save ALL models into ram, then on huge maps the ram woudl get so overfilled the game would crash. they fixed that in oen of CIV4 patches and forward whne ti flushes models that thep layer hasnt seen for a while at each (auto)save. but give a vanilla CIV4 8GB of ram and it will THRIVE in it. granted, this can be mostly attributed to poor programming, but its not like modern game makers care much for optimization now do they.

I am aware of this.

Oh those aren't so bad, but honestly I'd rather download a demo to see how it work, those GPU detectors never seem to give me the right info.

One of them told me I couldn't play Dishonored at all, which was hilariously ironic since I've been playing it with the graphics maxed out for months.

Sgt. Sykes:
It's a Russian game. Of course it's optimized like it was made by medieval monkeys. I'm not wondering about the graphics card requirements. I'm sure it will choke on some high-end systems.

That said, I'm baffled by the 8 GB RAM as optimum. I mean sure, once you have a high-end system, 8 GB RAM makes sense. But what the heck does the game need it for if it can run on a 2 GB system?

Let me explain this to you: 4A is Ukrainian. And Metro 2033 runs well even on my HD6670.

That said, their idea seems to have been to optimize it fro low CPU/GPU/RAM machines while also being able to utilise what a more powerful system has to offer. Do you have any idea what systems most people here in eastern Europe run? That HD6670 was the best the computer store had in stock, just so you know.

On the subject of RAM usage:
- Models and their applicable collision data
- physics algorithms
- textures (although those mostly use up GPU memory, just like the models)
- general usage engine algorithms (ALL OF THEM)
- developer scripts for the level
- the whole level (just FYI: that island in Far Cry 3 is broken up in so many chunks you don't even want to know)
- lighting and effects instructions to feed to the GPU
- lots more stuff I keep forgetting about (like BINK video stuff and audio files)

Logically, the higher in poly count and texture size you go, the more RAM you're going to need. Also, if you use more exact physics, that takes up a lot of space, too (and don't go telling me "PhysX is the solution to everything". some of us don't own NVidia cards).

I'll also drop a word on the subject of Tesselation: unnecessary. Only ever useful if you have a soft-body deformatiuon system like Rigs of Rods or BeamNG.

Sgt. Sykes:
It's a Russian game. Of course it's optimized like it was made by medieval monkeys. I'm not wondering about the graphics card requirements. I'm sure it will choke on some high-end systems.

That said, I'm baffled by the 8 GB RAM as optimum. I mean sure, once you have a high-end system, 8 GB RAM makes sense. But what the heck does the game need it for if it can run on a 2 GB system?

Metro 2033 was quite optimized... only thing that for some reason sucked was the advanced Depth of Field, granted it looked AWESOME in motion. Rest was both quite scalable and worked well whilst looking great :P .

Matthi205:
Let me explain this to you: 4A is Ukrainian. And Metro 2033 runs well even on my HD6670.

Heh okay Ukrainian, sorry. That country is a neighbour to mine, so yeah I have an idea what kind of purchasing power there is. BTW I have an 'oldie', overclocked supercharged, er, GF 9800GT. That's like, 2006 tech or something. Probably below even the minimum in this case, still it runs everything completely smooth (including GTA IV and Crysis on the very max details in 1080) with the exceptions of, hm, The Witcher, and Metro 2033. Actually, Stalker isn't exactly a pinnacle of smoothness either. Well, that's where I get the idea about optimization of games made in the 'ex Eastern bloc'. Tee hee.

(Saints Row 2 runs like shit as well, but that dev takes the first prize in stupidity of porting a X360 game by emulating X360 code on PC. Or so I heard.)

Anyway from those graphics thingies you mentioned, nothing except polygon count should have any massive effect on the RAM usage. If a game is supposed to run on Vista with 2 GB RAM... There's nothing which the engine can do which could need 8 gigs before collapsing. Unless, again, it's crappy optimization.

Well I'm not arguing, more like making fun. I'm glad someone is continuing the old trend of PC games which can actually make use of something newer than a 5-year old PC. Those exclusive Minecraft players who think graphics don't matter and make fun of Crytek can go choke on their Mario ports.

Sgt. Sykes:

Anyway from those graphics thingies you mentioned, nothing except polygon count should have any massive effect on the RAM usage. If a game is supposed to run on Vista with 2 GB RAM... There's nothing which the engine can do which could need 8 gigs before collapsing. Unless, again, it's crappy optimization.

You have no idea what you can do to a level... no idea. I'm not even going to recount it here, but look up raytracing and you might get a glimpse.

Even the number of light sources (actually especially the number of light sources) does a lot to performance. So does texture quality. Have you ever seen terrain with an applied 16384x116384 texture? It looks amazing. Shame I can only do it to 512x512m maps because otherwise Sandbox crashes... tee hee hee.

I don't even want to start factoring it up, but basically the higher you go in quality, the higher your RAM usage will be. And it's really not the high poly count of the models that matters all that much... All the effects you have cached, all that memory that's being taken up. Unreal games have this problem (they use UNHOLY amounts of memory even though it isn't required... TERA for example uses up to 3GB RAM ALONE).

And graphics don't matter all that much. It's actually all about getting the atmosphere right. You remember Fallout 3? The graphics are really not that good, but the game none the less feels really good. Still, exploring new frontiers is always good. And we'll be alright so long as we know what's possible and , more importantly, know at what price that comes. With most games, you can't put it all on crappy optimization though (SR2 was really badly ported* - not emulated as you stated because then it wouldn't run on a normal dual core x86_64 CPU, because Xenon - Xbox 360 arch - is PowerPC based).

And another thing to note is that Minecraft actually exhibits horrible performance... I get, what, 120fps? On an i3-3220 and an HD6670 I might add. But here, there's actually a tangible explanation - it's Java, it performs horribly by default.

Hmmm... ex eastern bloc games now actually seem to be better optimized from what I've played (granted it isn't much though). It's the lot of GamesForWindowsLIVE games that are optimized to run on super future space computers instead of actual, real, state-of-the-art computers. The only GFWL game I remember that worked well was Fallout 3, and that was because LIVE was largely unused and the game is based on Gamebryo, which means that they couldn't screw it up a lot.

*Though the big reason why it's considered an awful port is because it's got an awful lot of unfixed bugs, no option to turn mouse acceleration off, and no adjustment whatsoever for the switch from controller to mouse and keyboard.

DTWolfwood:

Optimum

Windows: Vista, 7 or 8
CPU: 3.4 GHz Multi-Core e.g. Intel Core i7
RAM: 8GB
Direct X: 11
Graphics Card: Nvidia GTX 690 / Nvidia Titan

I need to have $1000 graphics card to run the game optimally?! :sigh: looks like its time to break that bank ._.

I imagine "optimum" requirements apply to future-proofing things they don't expect most people to be able to run right now. See: The Witcher 2's ubersampling.

But will it blend?

OT:
Looks like its time to put a new graphics card in my box. The Radeon HD 7450 (Overclocked and repackaged 6450) stutters hard sometimes on Metro 2033 at medium-low so I should probably see about getting that Gigabyte 7870 I've been eying.

Matthi205:
You have no idea what you can do to a level... no idea. I'm not even going to recount it here, but look up raytracing and you might get a glimpse.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Of course you can make a game that will utilize 8 gigs. You can make a game that will run only on a supercomputer if you want. That's not the point.

I just don't believe that the SAME GAME can do both of: A) run on 2 GB together with vista B) make use of 8 gigs of RAM. Vista barely runs on a 2GB machine, therefore the game has to do with very little. Say, it will need a minimum of 1 gig for itself. How the heck can it scale up to 7 gigs (again let's leave 1 gig for the OS)? That's completely silly unless they load the whole game into RAMdisk.

Yea, the more stuff you throw in, the more RAM you'll use. Sure. But you also gotta have some minimum. If you throw in so much you'll use up 8 gigs of RAM (or 20, or 400 or whatever), you can't easily scale it back. Video RAM is rather easy to scale, CPU and CPU cycles are easy to spare or make use of if you have extra. RAM is tricky because you either scale for the lower-end (e.g. you stream stuff and load the level in small chunks) and then anything too much is wasted, or you scale for a higher-end (just dump everything from the HDD to RAM and deal with it later) which means you can't run from small RAM at all.

I just can't see the same game scale its RAM usage 1:7 without having duplicite content.

Case in point: GTA IV runs on tiny console RAM. That translates to about 1 gig usage on a PC with quality comparable to the console. However on the PC version you can enable all sort of shiny stuff, high-res textures and shadows, massive view distance, uber resolutions and all that will bump the mem usage to... about 1.5 gig. Not 7. Because the game is effective in the way it loads stuff, there's no point in using 7x the amount of RAM. Sure lots of physics bodies will stack up, but not that quickly.

Unless they actually use real raytracing at the optimum specs, I'd love to see that heh. I@ve been waiting for raytraced games forever.

Anyway the point is moot, we'll see what they come up with.

Aww man... I just bought a GTX 660. Now I need to go buy a Titan?! Sheesh...

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here