Mirror’s Edge: You’ll Need This

Edit – attributed this to the wrong source, because I’m a great big idiot. The original story’s actually here, and is replete with further details on Mirror’s Edge’s likely requirements, so well worth a read.

Are game system requirements a valid post? Ooh, it’s a toughie. There’s nothing more PC than specs – witness the number of Forum-men who display their PCs’ fact-innards in their sigs- but they’re hardly a mine of wonder to write about. For instance, apparently Mirror’s Edge needs a PC something like this:

# CPU: Pentium 4 at 2.4 GHz / Athlon 64 2800+
# RAM: 1GB
# Gfx card: GeForce 6 Series with 256MB VRAM or higher, or ATI X1650 (or HD2400)

Is that interesting? I honestly don’t know. Possibly interesting is that my immediate reaction is “oh, that’s a fairly low-end system”, which either means that I’m a monstrous hardware fascist (more than likely) or that the concept of what a modern gaming PC is has changed somewhat over the last year or so.

I suspect it’s a bit of both. My presumption is that a vast majority of Mirror’s Edge’s potential player base will shrug those specs, and hence this post, off as pretty much irrelevant to their significantly beefier machines, but are there those of you out there who were hoping to play this game on a lesser PC than the listed, and hence crying yourselves to sleep?


  1. The Shed says:

    A “low-end system”… Hotdamn, to me that looks like freakin hot memory sauce on toasted smoking (read- better than mine) graphics card.

    Still, I’m getting the game on Three-sixtoid, so I really do not care. People truly get off on specs these days, and that just seems to drag a lot of the attention off games themselves- which is the whole point of this endeavour.

  2. Meat Circus says:

    I laugh at your paltry so-called ‘numbers’.

  3. Mike says:

    That is a little low-end, given its loveliness. I dunno. The 6-series are below the minimum now if you’re upgrading, so anyone that bought a card in the last twelve months is probably fine.

  4. Pavel says:

    This PC was highend four years ago, so its okay. And also, ME runs on Unreal engine 3, so if you could run Bioshock/R6Vegas/GoW/UT3 or any other game based on that engine, you will be able to run ME.

  5. Bhlaab says:

    It’s being made for the 360, which is pretty much a low-to-middle-end system so I’m not too surprised.

    Are these the minimum req. or recommended? Because minimum is back-of-the-box-speak for “horseshit” specifications

  6. PJ says:

    looks mighty low-endish. if it will run like U3 did, we have nothing to worry about

  7. Stick says:

    I’m “low-end” now? But my l33t hardware is the envy of all my friends! Oh, yes, I remember… I’ve blinked twice since I bought my “pretty decent” machine.

    @Bhlaab: Link says “Preliminary System Requirements”… which I read as the equine manure variant.

  8. deABREU says:

    most games now are being made with the ps360 in mind, and as those boxes’ hardware won’t evolve, thesame will happen with the sys reqs of games.

    well, I guess there will be a tiny bit, as pc optimization won’t improve as much as console.

  9. Cooper says:

    That’s pretty much what I play on. My rig is almost four years old, so that seems about right Pavel.

    That being said, minimum specs are usually a load of smelly balls. I can run most Unreal Engine 3 games on a similar rig to the one given above, so it may stick in this case – but usually they’re just a bare faced lie.

    Which is not so much a bad thing – I’m not sure how people manage to play so many games that they need to upgrade or get a new computer every other year… I play a heck of a lot, and there’s still a raft of games from 2006 and earlier I want to play before considering the need to buy a new computer to play any recent releases…

  10. DSX says:

    Reading those specs makes me glad I can play it when it comes out – however, it’s still perplexing how the Xbox’s hardware is a lower end PC, but yet I can’t play the PC port of assassins creed on mine because of the insanely high specs (I only have an A64 3500).

  11. MetalCircus says:

    I’ve a fairly old system. I hope this works!

  12. Bhlaab says:

    DSX> Because whoever coded the pc port was crap at it

  13. Maximum Fish says:

    Then again, Mirror’s Edge doesn’t look too much flashier than Half-Life 2, plus a few “next-gen” shaders and whatchacallits, and so it could easily be they’re putting gameplay and a wider demographic over cutting edge graphical fidelity (just as valve did).

    Which is (/would be) awesome.

  14. Cossak says:

    That’ll be lazy developers for you DSX; unwilling to spend the time to optimise their game for the PC, which is funny as it would probably result in better profit.

    These specs seem somewhat lower than other UE3 games, which is perhaps due to the flatter textures and lower number of objects on-screen.

  15. Gap Gen says:

    Be interesting to see what it looks like on those settings, with that spec. Possibly not as lovely as the screenies.

  16. Forceflow says:

    I think a smooth framerate is very important for this type of game. You wouldn’t want to miss a jump because of the occasional frame glitch …

  17. Hypocee says:

    That’s about equal to my current hand-me-down gaming system which I believe I built three years ago. As mentioned above, we’re entering the sweet spot of this console cycle – those lovely couple of years where they start dragging the specs back on PC, but ports don’t look too ugly yet.

    Now all that remains is to see whether that’s the ‘minimum’ spec for 800×600 at 10FPS; not all UE games are created equal.

  18. CrashT says:

    That’s pretty much the spec of my previous PC, before my £500+ upgrades. Still I wonder how “playable” it’ll be on such a machine.

    Though I do feel like a traitor as I have a feeling I’ll be picking this up for 360.

  19. nabeel says:

    I’m always glad to see AAA games with low minimum requirements. My machine is quite mid-high, though, so I’m more interested in the Recommended Specs. It plays UT3, BioShock and Mass Effect great so I’m optimistic that I can play Mirror’s Edge at maximum settings.


  20. CryingMinotaur says:

    What? That better be the min spec for running on 680 x 480 resolution or something! There better be some extreme FSAA and anisotropic-whateva-filtering options to keep my 3digit FPS-churning monster busy! Or else!!!

    //**// Check out my sig \\**\\
    – Intel Core 2 Extreme QX100000 3.6 GHz (o’cloked!!!1!)
    – ATI Radeon HD 4800 X 2 XTX Extreme Platimum Ultra Crossfire (or something) graphic cards (like, two of ’em!)
    – 8GB of Corsair “ReallyFastReallyExpensive” RAM
    – Foxconn Blackops Elite 7000 Motherboard (yep, in black)
    – WD Raptor 20,000 RPM RAID harddrives (a bit noisy, but totally worth it)
    – 1500 W “The Monster” PSU (even noisier, but, like, TOTALLY worth it)
    – Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit Edition (coz 64 > 32 man!)

  21. CryingMinotaur says:

    Facetiousness aside, I welcome this development. I do my gaming on my (admittedly fairly decently endowed) laptop, so this is indeed good news for me. Every single Unreal Engine 3 game I’ve tried thus far has run smoothly on fairly high settings, so I’m optimistic. I think it was quite a technical accomplishment by Epic to deliver a very pretty engine that doesn’t seem to be too greedy.

  22. Monchberter says:

    @ crying minotaur

    Do i detect a hint of sarcasm. ;)

  23. Shadowmancer says:

    The problem is the screenshots and vids of the game, most games are mostly photoshopped in their previews, however when the game comes out it will look 30% more shit than it already does, i ve seen this many times with games in the past such as the unreal 3 engine and a few others, the graphics of the game that are produced in previews cannot match the graphics that an average player with a pc that exceeds the specs and runs the game a 60 fps. In Mirrors Edges case it depends upon what the engine is like, long load times to produce the big open maps and graphics or its a lie and the game is about as linear as pong.

  24. marks says:

    Mirrors Edge uses Unreal Engine 3.0 if I recall correctly

  25. Dominic White says:

    You really don’t need to spend a lot to run pretty-shiny games. A hundred quid nowadays will get you an ATI 4850HD, which is a little beast of a card – capable of running Crysis in crazy-bastard DX10 mode quite happily, and everything else on the market will easily do 60fps.

  26. Xyzzy says:

    “but are there those of you out there who were hoping to play this game on a lesser PC than the listed, and hence crying yourselves to sleep?”

    I’m crying myself to sleep, and I have an above-spec graphics card: the most amazing, wonderful, so-awesome-its-not-even-funny: the Geforce 6150 LE (lame edition).

    I… I… I can’t even run Portal!


  27. ultrasound composer says:

    Xyzzy – I’m not someone who advocates spending any effort running on the hardware treadmill but an HD3450 for 25 quid is well worth it for orange box alone (even just for the mods/extra TF2 stuff if you’ve played it on console). Unless you’re on a laptop and stuck.

  28. N says:

    Surprising…for EA I mean… That’s basically my current computer, I think I’ll wait to play the game on my new machine though… weird they didn’t play the “greedy” card. Big boy companies usally pimp out some gfx cards along with they’re game. I remember F.E.A.R and the 7800GT banner that went around every gaming site for quite some time, although I don’t think Monolith can be considered such a big boy in the end…

  29. Charlie says:

    UE games have always been easy on your PC while still looking nice, just a shame Epic aren’t as good at making games.

    They have given up the PC somewhat because of poor sales. That’s because we’ve all played their games for years and they never bloody change them! Also, GoW’s biggest selling point was the graphics and they left it so long it wasn’t as hot.

    Just been mugged and feeling cheesed off >:( Anyway, ME looks great IMO

  30. Esha says:

    I have a laptop with better specs than that, so it’s not hard.

    I have to admit though, I’ll be looking for demos of Mirror’s Edge, or at least the chance to play it on display in a store, or while squatting in another’s house, or… somehow where I don’t have to lay money down. I’ll be giving the PC and PS3 versions a shot, and if the controls are suited to console play (which they just might be considering that aiming doesn’t seem to be a requisite) I’ll probably be buying the PS3 version.

    Sorry PC fans but in my case, HDMI telly > laptop monitor. I’m past the age where I can squander many, many shiny moneys on expensive monitors and desktop rigs with liquid cooling, with the cooling, and the LEDs, and… /sob

    But my laptop is good enough these days for what I need it for, usually stubborn games that couldn’t possibly work with a gamepad/joystick-of-some-sort.

  31. Esha says:

    s/, with the cooling,/, what with the glowing,/

    D’oh. I really have to get an account here. I post regularly enoughg to. But then I wouldn’t have an excuse to do a string replace in a reply, thus cementing the fact that I am a lifeless geek despite my laptop status.


  32. CitizenErazed says:

    Reading those specs makes me glad I can play it when it comes out – however, it’s still perplexing how the Xbox’s hardware is a lower end PC, but yet I can’t play the PC port of assassins creed on mine because of the insanely high specs (I only have an A64 3500).

    Because your PC has to run an operating system and all sorts of other shite that the 360 doesn’t have to. Remember the 360 only has 512mb RAM total, which includes vRAM.

    And yeah, Assassin’s Creed is a bad port. But in general, specs for games on both will be far higher than the 360 specs.

  33. Steve says:

    Its all very nice of them to give us a min spec and all but does anyone have any idea as to how it actually runs on said spec?

    The numbers given may well be something along the lines of the 360 but with the current development trend of deploying special ability no 2. ‘Port Stuff From The 360 Real Efficient Like’ ™, its not really that encouraging.

    Personally I’m not too worried about the spec though. I’m currently much more interested in finding out if its possible to increase the FOV since I would have considered that to be beneficial in a game where environmental perception seems to be paramount.

  34. Crane says:

    Can anyone explain why SIXTY FPS is considered the only acceptable framerate? Hell, TWENTY is playable though annoying, and thirty-plus is totally fine.

  35. kadayi says:

    Well 60 is what you want to average, because invariably you will get dips under it (esp when levels are loading, when there are explosions etc), but it’s far less noticeable, Vs having an average frame rate of 30, where such dips do become glaringly obvious and can hinder game play.

  36. Gene says:

    Quite expectable requirements, nothing too demanding. I wonder what engine it uses?
    Also, I believe 30+fps is perfectly fine, 20-30 is okay with slow games. I once played civ4 at 10fps and there were no problems ;)

  37. Arnulf says:

    Nice. Seems rather low-end for today’s standards. Of course, the real meat is always where the recommended specs lie. Sometimes even those are more like the real minimum required specs for a game. The minimum requirements are then more like “you can load this game into your computer and run it, and your computer won’t crash… mostly”.

  38. Jetsetlemming says:

    That is pretty low end.

    Also whining about minimum requirements is dumb. ;) They’re based around four things- what CPU features it requires, what OS it can run in, what video card features it uses, and the max amount of memory it’ll take up with all the settings on minimum. Thus, this requires P4, XP/Vista, Shader Model 3 video card(A result of the console development- Unreal Engine 3 itself supports down to SM2), and 1 GB of memory.
    How well this runs for you is less a matter of how they wrote the system requirements and more a matter of how low is low for your tastes and if you’re willing to turn shit down.

  39. Andrew says:

    Awesome Google algorithm ad-linkage to link to splashbacks.org

    I never knew kitchen splashbacks were colour coded for efficient free running.

  40. dhex says:

    the many banners and sigs people create in pc hardware forums showing off their “specs” is something between an anarchistic folk art and the most mundane shop talk you could possibly imagine.

    that said: low specs for good games isn’t a bad thing at all. maybe they spent more time making it play well in addition to looking pretty good. (well, it looks good in the demo vids, at least)

  41. Y3k-Bug says:

    That to me seems like quite reasonable specs.

    I built my entire system from scratch last September for about $1300 USD, and it easily out specs those requirements. Kudos to the developers for keeping the needs of the game modest.

    That said, I dunno what system they used to run the game at PAX, but my oh my. I want it to look just as good as the playable demo on the show floor. It looks like a realistically done animation show. And I mean that fully as a compliment.

  42. Pod says:

    People still put their specs in their sigs?

  43. The Shed says:

    It’s being made for the 360, which is pretty much a low-to-middle-end system so I’m not too surprised.

    Hurm, mind that a 360 (or concole in general) doesn’t have to deal with the same amount of guff as a PC does, so it doesn’t require as much power CPU wise. It’s hard to gauge exactly what level a console is versus a computer + OS + all the other shit.

  44. Lightbulb says:

    Not being funny here but that graphics card was what i bought 4 years ago in a £700 (mid budget for then) system. Since you can build that PC for around £300 its not exactly high end is it?

  45. zima says:

    Xyzzy, Portal runs for me perfectly fine on GF6150LE, but only if you force dx8 mode (the game doesn’t lose much graphically)