Chryst: Crysis 2 Minimum Specs Out

If you could marry HUDs I would marry the HUD from Dead Space but I would have an affair with this one.

More than three years on and Crysis remains one of the most technically demanding games you can buy for your PC, a dubious honour it shares with such fine programs as Arma 2 and Photoshop. Now it is the future and Crysis has a sequel and the minimum specs for that sequel have been disgorged by VG247. How bad are they? Are they awful? Well, they’re actually not too bad at all. I just really like that headline.

The original Crysis demanded a 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster (Vista) CPU, a gig of RAM, a 256MB video card and 12 gigs of hard disc space.

Crysis 2 wants the following:

* Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon 64 X2 2GHz or better
* Nvidia 8800 GT or higher
* 2 GB RAM
* Windows XP/Vista/7
* 9 GB free hard disk space
* Internet connection

So, same sort of video card, slightly heftier CPU, more RAM, and 3 gigs less hard disc space. Hardly a giant leap forward in expectations considering Crysis 2 uses CryEngine 3, Crytek’s successor to Crysis’ CryEngine 2.

Man. Remember having to upgrade your PC every year to get the best out of it? No? Me either.


  1. Richard Beer says:

    Thank God for consoles, frankly. If it wasn’t for the XBox 360 and its mass market ability to generate piles of cash for developers who code well for it, my 4+ year old gaming PC wouldn’t still be able to run the latest AAA titles in high resolution loveliness.

    • Hogni Gylfason says:

      On the other hand. God damn the consoles. Because of them we are still playing the same remakes of the same games in the same engines as we were 4 years ago.,

    • skinlo says:

      Ye, more goddam consoles, I like technology, I want to see things progress. I don’t want to be able to play this with my 3 year old PC.

    • Urael says:

      That’s just silliness, Skinlo. A decent PC can play everything on the market currently, with fabulous graphics and smooth framerates, and you’re moaning because you’re not being forced to spend money on hardware upgrades every few months?

      I say Thank God for consoles putting an end to that madness!

    • sneetch says:

      A point in danger of being lost here is that those are the minimum specs.

      You can still scale it up to get the most out of your ninja PC’s if you want, you just don’t have to have a ninja PC to be able to play it.

      It’s good to see that even with the improvements they made to the engine they haven’t moved the base line any further along. No point in excluding most of your market after all.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Indeed. Anyone remember when “minimum specs” meant “at least your PC won’t explode as you sit through this juddery mess”?

    • skinlo says:

      I realised my comment sounds a bit silly in retrospect :P

      Fair point about them being minimum specs, I just don’t like technology being held back by the consoles!

    • Bhazor says:

      Yes because PC games surpassed Crysis years ago.

    • Nova says:


      Yeah the graphics are so fabulous that the three year old Crysis still looks better than most stuff today.
      And what is always forgotten. Faster hardware means more than fancier graphics. (Also witnessed in Crysis’ openness, for example)

    • Archonsod says:

      Consoles never hold back the PC hardware market. Unless of course you’re only using the PC for gaming. In which case you’re still a bloody console gamer :P

    • Rinox says:

      Even though some people here are happy for consoles to slow down tech cycles on PC games, which is understandable from a financial POV (but still exaggerated unless you make a point to play every game at max settings), it’s also killing a lot of the progress on things other than just shiny graphics.

      But yet, almost all original game ideas still come from the PC. The consoles are hardly coming up with revolutionary ideas and games within the confines of the platform limitations, which imho would be the only reason anyone could praise them for holding back progress.

      The reality is, closed platforms with no (real) technical upgrading abilty are just holding back gaming as a whole.

    • torchedEARTH says:

      You did know the developer has said that by being able to sell their game to the console market as well meant they had loads more money to make a better all round game than if they were just selling it to the PC market.

      You did know that right?

    • Hogni Gylfason says:


      They _could_. But they _don’t_. The difference is marked.

    • DrGonzo says:

      A better game? Scaled down multiplayer, simplifying all of your suits powers thus removing a lot of complexity, choice and fun. Oh, and much smaller single player levels with less options on how to approach them.

      Yes, it being on console too has really improved the game.

    • Muzman says:

      This is an interesting debate.
      It never would occur to me to thank consoles for this situation, or else there wouldn’t be so many console games that look worse than their PC counterparts. But I can’t dismiss the idea.
      I’m more inclined to attribute the situation to the much predicted plateau in rendering power & detail finally arriving (or at least approaching). But I guess that needn’t force people to code better, or even well. Maybe they’re working together?

    • DrGonzo says:

      I see the problem being how it effects level design and game design rather than the graphics, because memory limitations do make a big difference.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      I agree with the OP. I just simply can’t afford to buy a new PC, and that’s what it would take for me to run a game like this. As much as I hate playing FPS games with a controller, it’s starting to look like I’m going to have to do the majority of my gaming on a console. So, at least it’s an OPTION for those of us who don’t have a good enough PC and can’t buy a new one.

      I guess you could say consoles are holding the market back, but I guess that’s the price you pay. If the minimum specs were playable, and then the recommended specs were for a super duper computer I’d have no problems. Yeah, I guess devs can’t develop games for ancient computers all the time, though some do a good job. But in a market where upgrading hardware can be cost prohibitive, they have to really take it into consideration if they want to maximize sales.

    • DiamondDog says:


      Is it that much of a problem, though? Current game worlds aren’t exactly tiny. The quality of the level design is down to many things, not just how powerful the hardware is.

    • el_Chi says:

      Games like Red Dead Redemption, GTA4, Mafia 2 and so on did pretty good jobs of having large, open game worlds on consoles.

      I think it’d help for us to actually *play* Crysis 2 before we decide that consoles have held it back.

    • DarkFenix says:

      Graphics-wise I honestly couldn’t care less about anything holding back the PC gaming industry, I play more older games than new ones, not giving a damn about how pretty they look.

      What I have a problem with is consoles holding back PC gaming in other areas. Things like the deterioration of the interface in a great many shared games and often oversimplified shooter mechanics. Genres with no console equivalent (strategy mostly) are markedly better in terms of their evolution than some other genres that had to stop and wait (or even go back) for the proverbial special kid having difficulty figuring out which foot to put in front of the other.

    • MikoSquiz says:

      I’ll be absolutely shocked if there’s anything interesting or entertaining about Crysis 2. Or any other future game with ‘cry’ in the title.

    • Xercies says:

      Closed platforms aren’t holding back gaming, sorry but thats not the full picture, what is holding back gaming is basically making lots and lots of money and thinking only certain types of games make money. To be honest i just wish we had an Inception of video games, a game which shows you can be smart about design and have a great story and still earn millions of pounds. If that happens then were going to forward.

      Just look at the Dreamcast, that had some really creative games and was a really good console. Not because of the power of it but because Sega let some creative developers and studios make whatever they wanted on it and it came out really good.

    • DarkFenix says:

      You’re quite right Xercies, looking at consoles as the problem is perhaps looking at a symptom rather than a cause. However, we have seen games that have been both smart and successful, the problem is you don’t need to be. While games can make millions without needing to bother being smart we’ll not see much movement.

    • sassy says:

      You all assume that it is the fault of consoles that min specs haven’t been advancing? Really that ignores a variety of other possible contributing. I would argue that if consoles hadn’t taken majority sales that this would still be happening, the simple fact is that the industry can’t afford better graphics. To break even on a big title requires a lot of sales, if they had to up the graphics then just puts even more strain on the need for sales.

      I’m not saying consoles did nothing, they clearly did. I am just stating that you are all ignoring other factors.

      oh and I know how badly written this post is, way too early for my brain to function.

    • wazups2x says:

      Consoles also give us bad console ports that run terribly bad on PC’s.

    • Basilard says:

      “Consoles also give us bad console ports that run terribly bad on PC’s.”

      Not the fault of consoles, either.
      Bad PC ports are the sole responsibility of PC port developers and I don’t think why anyone would thing otherwise.

      That said, it would be cool if everyone had multiplatform tech like Capcom’s MT Framework.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      Yes, of course, stagnation and regurgitation are wonderful things and something we should all aspire to.
      Oh thank you so very much, consoles!
      What would we do without you. Outside of innovate, make new, creative games, expand the boundaries of current engines, actually challenge stuff, progress..

      Well I think you get the idea. Then again this is really a publisher cowardice issue much more than a platform issue alone. Safe franchise => safe sequel => safe profit is their logic.

      So we’re the ones to blame if we buy the same 5 games(one for each genre, just increment the year e.g.) over and again.

      And this leads to the next thing to clarify: not consoles, but the idiots who buy and continually SUPPORT consoles are the problem. They are the ones who prevent good PC ports by making the console platform financially more interesting, they are the ones who dumb down the controls and playforms due to the “I want to sit on the couch while playing and not have a lot of hassle after work” attitude and so on and so forth.
      So it is not the evil console MAKERS.
      It is the stupid console BUYERS who create the market in the first place instead of boycotting it.

    • Nethlem says:

      No matter how often i read that line of reasoning i still don’t understand it…
      It’s like people completly forgot that PC games usually have something called “graphic quality settings”, these things allow you to tune the visuals matching to your machines performance.

      If done right you can have a game that still looks/runs okay on a 3 year old PC but at the same time tax an 3000€ PC to it’s limits with shiny graphics.

      Why can’t we have the best of both worlds? Why can’t i make real use of my watercooled overclocked HD 5870 while you can still play a not so shiny looking game at stable framerates? No instead we have people proclaiming that technological progress stagnating is a good thing because they can’t be bothered to play on medium settings instead of very high…

      Yeah i’m really happy playing Dead Space 2 completly maxed out with 200 fps and blocky models and washed up console textures. That’s so awesome…. (great game anyway but with some real textures it could have been so much better -_-)

  2. Hogni Gylfason says:

    Did Crysis require a computer from the future? Yes.

    Does Crysis require a computer from the future. No. The future is now, after all.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      I think you’ll find that tomorrow is always a day away. :)

    • torchedEARTH says:

      @Hogni Gylfason

      Edge magazine 224 – page 54

      Crysis 2 has a bigger budget than Crysis thanks to developing for consoles as well.

      “Crysis 2 for the PC is a *PC* game, the best we could make it” (not a console port)

  3. My2CENTS says:

    8800GT for Minimum is not he same as the first Crysis, seems like if the PC ran the first one the second one would be a hard job after-all.

    • icupnimpn2 says:

      Providing a specific graphics card as a minimum standard is not very helpful when there are really no standards in the industry. I don’t care to delve into Tom’s Hardware Guide to figure out where my ATI Radeon HD 5750 stands in comparison to the Nvidia 8800 GT. Is there an easy way to tell what is a “higher” video card?

      Not that I give a crap about Crysis.

    • bill says:

      i don’t have an 8800gt. I also have no idea if my card is better or worse than an 8800gt because there is no easy way to know.

      i wish microsoft’s Windows Experience Rating had taken off…

    • Spork says:

      When I was buying my system I used this: link to

      Ofc I also got a Sandy Bridge mobo, which went well…

    • Archonsod says:

      Generally, when they’re using a graphics card as a minimum it’s the featureset rather than the card which is important. Doesn’t matter if you have a slower card after all, it’s just performance that’ll be effected.

      If it’s listing an 8800 as a minimum, odds are it’s going to be a DX10 game.

    • Kazang says:

      8800 GT is a landmark graphics card, it sold huge volumes. So it’s used as a baseline as it makes sense to as many people as possible and the game is developed in partnership with nvidia so it’s not going to use a ATI/AMD card for reference.

      It was a mid range card in 2009, anything that is considered mid or high range produced after that is equal or better than a 8800GT.
      A HD 5750 is a mid range card one generation ahead of the 8800 GT, so is roughly equivalent to the 8800’s high end brother.

      The easy way to see how good your graphics card is to just google for “*graphics card* benchmarks” and you can see how it stacks up to others.

    • My2CENTS says:

      Dunno about it but it seems quite steep putting this card as minimum specs, the only other game that i know that require it as a minimum is Shattered Horizon.

    • Optimaximal says:

      As mentioned, the 8800GT isn’t the minimum because its a specific model. It’s the minimum because its the most popular reference design that is competently capable of DirectX10.

    • Ziv says:

      I believe they’ve changed the meaning of minimum, the min’ graphic card for the original was a 6600GT and I wouldn’t dream of trying to run it with that card. minimum back then meant, like Gap Gen said, that your PC wouldn’t explode trying to run the game, it would still be a horrible experience. Nowadays there’s a trend (that’s not being followed much) to list the minimum as ‘minimum playable’ or ‘you’ll get a proper experience of the game’ and recommended means ‘this is what the developers actually meant that you’ll see. additional horsepower beyond recommended would still enable better graphics they just aren’t essential to the experience. It’s a bit like that article from last week that Alec wrote about the experience the developer intended you to have.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Crysis ran really smoothly on it’s minimum specs. It just ended up looking almost the same as the original Far Cry. I saw my flat mate playing it on his pc which had a single core athlon and an X800, it ran perfectly smoothly.

      That’s what pissed me off about the complaints about Crysis performance wise. It would run smoothly on a single core with a shit graphics card, but people weren’t willing to turn the settings down.

    • Resin says:

      ouch, the Sandy Bridge Mobo SNafu? I feel your pain

    • Jad says:


      Was the 8800 really mid-range in 2009? I upgraded my computer at the end of 2008 with a 9800GT (which is basically a 8800GT with a newer featureset) for $100 and a free copy of COD4.

      For those complaining: I would consider a 8800 really low-end nowadays. In fact, going to I see one going for $44, which is less than the price of the actual game.

      The reason why this card is the minimum: because of the Xbox. Minimum is the Xbox, and if you have a similar card (like me), you’ll certainly get no worse performance than the majority of people who will play this game.

  4. Urael says:

    I want to be the first to say “consoles” on this thread [UPDATE: Dammit, failed]. Not because I believe that’s all the reason this new engine seems fairly on a par with the last one spec-wise but because it gets that ball-rolling nicely.

    I remember when others used to do the yearly hardware upgrade, and I’d watch and cry, yes. Nowadays, it’s nice to finally be able to afford these things but to actually not be required to. Value for money in PC hardware at last, thank Jeebus.

  5. markside says:

    Also quite demanding: Red Faction Guerilla. If you wanted it to look nice and not collapse into stuttering every time you collapse a building into rubble. First game I bought in a while that made me think about an upgrade.

    • Richard Beer says:

      That’s interesting. RF:G was one of the few games I played on my XBox 360 rather than my PC (borrowed it off a friend) and it ran smooth as a smooth thing. Was it much prettier on the PC? I found the world a little… plain at times.

    • Hogni Gylfason says:

      Grab a CUDA card (nv9+, e.g. a cheap 9600GT). The heavy lifting neccesary in RF:G is mostly due to the Physics.

    • Brumisator says:

      Well RF:G had a pretty bad PC port, at least keyboard&mouse-control-wise

    • Baboonanza says:

      That was entirely down to it being a mediocre port (I wouldn’t say terrible, GTA4 is much worse). The graphics were pretty bad (featureless martian terrain is not particularly taxing for a modern GPU) and the physics, while moderately cool, did not remotely tax my quad core. It also suffered from a weird stutter that I’ve seen on several XBox ports but doesn’t seem particularly realated to performance.

    • Optimaximal says:

      Like GTA4 & Saints Row, RF:G (built on the same engine as SR) was only happy if it had 3 or more processor cores to work with because the code was essentially ripped from the Xbox.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      RFG had one of the worst gun upgrade progressions I have ever seen. Getting the disintegrating ray was such a disappointment vs just chucking stick-grenades onto buildings and letting them go kaboom.
      And so useless against everything.

      So essentially, the first two things you play with, the machine gun and the stickmines/grenades are also the best arsenal for the longest stretch. And that’s just stupid.

      This of course would not be as big an issue if this game weren’t yet another terrific example of console crippleware = restricted gun slots. Yet another perfect piece of proof that restricting gun slots leads to a less enjoyable, less flexible game, especially when you can’t exchange your arsenal for hours once you start to move out into the sandbox world.

      Stupid, stupid, stupid. And it could have been a lot of fun, but just deteriorates into eternal “driving from x to y to z, occassionally sniping at stuff” legwork instead of Just Cause 2 like destructo-fun. Another crippled title, btw. 3 guns. Just. Not. Enough. Especially as it is essentially just big gun + one akimbo set.

  6. kael13 says:

    Darn.. Making it real hard for me to justify an upgrade from ATI 5870s to an nVidia 580…

  7. Nallen says:

    I miss being blown away on a regular basis. Oh well.

  8. Teddy Leach says:

    Well, that’s not what I expected!

  9. Bureaucrat says:

    So, basically, the machine I built in April of 2007.

  10. Giant, fussy whingebag says:

    I think we need to bear in mind that these are the minimum requirements.

    The baseline may not have changed much, but I bet you need a pretty hefty machine to get the full portion of loveliness…

  11. trjp says:

    As ever, Min Reqs/Recommended Specs are guesswork from the developer and will seldom turn-out anywhere near the mark.

    Reality for a PC gamer is saying “does my gpu/memory/cpu need an upgrade?” or “is the last game I played pushing it a bit hard” etc. etc.

    Adjust that in line with your expectations too – the guy who doesn’t mind 30fps with the odd dip spends a lot less than the person who simply must have locked 60fps everywhere, always.

    In other words, stop kidding yourself and then raging on forums when your PC is within Min/Rec Spec and doesn’t do what you unrealistically expected of it eh?? Thanks…

  12. Sic says:

    The ridiculous part is that these requirements are rather high, yet the original looks way better than the sequel (at least from what we’ve seen in videos), and that could be run on the absolute maximum settings with a 8800GTX, with playable frame rates (I got something like 35 FPS out of a C2D Q6600 @ 3.3 GHz and a 8800GTX, with the only performance problems presenting themselves in the interior of the mountain).

    Consoles aren’t really helping PCs play the lastest AAA games, it’s just that our computers are now so fantastically better performing than the consoles, that ports can be programmed by any old monkey the developers can get their hands on, and it will still run like butter on a hot summer day.

    • rivalin says:

      Precisely, how anyone is gullible enough to be convinced that this is a good thing is beyond me.

      The fact of the matter is that the engine looks not not better, but worse; three years of optimisation, experience with the editor and clever little tricks have allowed them to cover up how much the tech has had to be gimped for consoles.

      We’ve now got people celebrating that a game with worse graphics, and a less demanding engine tech base, has higher system requirements than a game that is three years old, and has better graphics. Crysis 2, if properly optimised for PC should have not just equivalent system requirements, but LOWER ones.

      PC gamers are going to be playing a game with an inferior engine, that needs a better pc, because Crytek cares only about money and have saddled the pc with what must be a badly optimised port of a console game. This is not a value judgement, just a simple observation that anyone capable of rational thinking and basic deduction should be able to come up with.

    • DrazharLn says:

      “This is not a value judgement, just a simple observation that anyone capable of rational thinking and basic deduction should be able to come up with.”

      It’s an observation you have made based on extremely limited data. I expect a more rational person might wait for benchmarks and proper comparisons.

    • wazups2x says:


      You are 100% correct. Consoles ports are just causing games to be terribly optimized for PC’s. Consoles are doing nothing good for PC gamers.

  13. Alistair says:

    Yay – should be playable on my phone…

  14. bonjovi says:

    Maybe we’ve reached the pint in the current technology that is not worth making it look better? slight improvements will lead to huge requirements and development costs.

    Maybe we should wait for some new technology, real time ray tracing anyone?

    • Baboonanza says:

      The problem isn’t graphics technology. The effort required to produce a top-draw engine is relatively small compared to the cost of content generation.

      If there is to be a big improvement in game graphics that is where the revolution must come from.

    • Brumisator says:

      So…in the same post you say that games look good enough to not require upgrading, and say that we need more graphical innovation.


    • Zyrusticae says:

      Reading comprehension is your friend.

      He said innovation in content generation, or in other words, reduction in the cost of creating new art assets, sound, music, etc., which is where most of the cost of developing a game really comes from.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      John Carmack.

  15. Jonathan says:

    I think I’ve seen elsewhere that it wants a 3850 or higher on the ATI/AMD side of video cards, which puts me out of the running. Oh well — the hype train for Crysis 2 didn’t bother to stop at my station anyway.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I presume that’s a typo, I think the ATI equivalent should be the 4850.

    • alseT says:

      I’m not sure that’s true. I remember the 4850 performed 15-20% better than the 8800.

  16. Ravenger says:

    So, minimum spec of internet connection… ok, that’s required for multiplayer but I bet it’s got some form of internet activation DRM too.

    To be honest, it’s the DRM system I’m interested in finding out about more than the system specs because I know my PC will be able to handle the game as it handles the original at max detail (no AA) very well indeed.

    I’m just hoping it’s more like Dragon Age 2 (with no extra Steam DRM) than Dead Space 2 (Limited activations even on the Steam version).

  17. Mark says:

    I’m a lot less worried about the specs than I am about the level design, which I suspect is way more linear than the first game. Arguably the two things are related, though.

    I’m playing through the original Crysis for the first time at the moment. The amount of freedom in how you approach objectives is more or less rare in FPSs. It would be a shame for it to become even more of an endangered species.

    • Jad says:

      Well everyone shat on (and still shits on) Crysis for being a “generic shooter with nice graphics” despite having mechanics and gameplay that, as you note, are in fact very rare in FPSes, so even if it is as free-form as the original I don’t expect anyone to actually notice.

  18. kyrieee says:

    Minimum specs for Crysis was something like a 6800 wasn’t it? Now they’ve gone and put the thing on consoles, made it look less impressive (IMO) and the minimum spec is a card that could play the original on High? I don’t think the min spec is unreasonable, that card is about three years old, but nothing I’ve seen from the game justifies it.

    • DrGonzo says:

      As far as I’m aware we haven’t seen the PC version running properly yet, so I’m not sure how you know it looks worse.

  19. The Pink Ninja says:

    Got to remember one of the problem with the original wasn’t its high spec requirements so much as the slightly dodgy programming.

    I could play it on high but only for a few hours at a time before by PC overheated and needed a shut-down and cooling towel.

    • Sic says:

      The problem was that the game was years ahead of it’s time in terms of what the renderer did. The “dodgy programming” stuff going around is a myth because of the high requirements.

  20. itsallcrap says:

    Remember having to upgrade your PC every year to get the best out of it? No? Me either.

    Good point. People mention this from time to time, but I’ve been playing PC games since the 386 first arrived and I’ve always found that it you have enough know-how to buy a fairly futureproof rig in the first place then by the time it needs upgrading, everything needs upgrading, so I just get a new computer.

  21. Gnoupi says:

    Now the fun part is that it’s almost the same requirements for Magicka:

    link to

  22. Robin says:

    Well with that specs you were be able to play crysis 1/warhead at medium-to-high settings (actually always high, with the exception of the final level). Now with the same specs you’ll be able to run crysis 2 at MINIMUM settings?

  23. P3RF3CT D3ATH says:

    Are we gonna see the recommended specs or even the minimum specs for the game to run at max settings with 60 fps?

    • Urthman says:

      It would be great if the computer required to run the game 60FPS at the MAX settings doesn’t exist yet.

      But idiots trying to run the first Crysis at max settings and then complaining that their computers couldn’t handle it ruined that idea, and so now no company will ever again release a game with advanced settings for when the hardware catches up.

      ( Maybe if Crytek had locked the max settings unless your machine could manage a particular score on a benchmark test? )

    • pipman3000 says:

      maybe they could not include ultra-mega-high detail settings that reqiure a computer from the future and end this hardware dick measuring contest once and for all. how about that?

  24. mollemannen says:

    are you sure you didn’t post the specs for the first crysis cuse these are pretty weak.

  25. batfink says:

    I played this at euro gamer on a gtx 460 and that was having FPS problems! Weither it was just the fact it was an alpha im not sure? But i can assure you it did look the nuts!

  26. Gonefornow says:

    Watch out, Inception the game is coming.

  27. negativedge says:

    I pity anyone that seriously tried to run the original Crysis at its listed minimum specs.

  28. Initialised says:

    Hopefully Intel will sort out the mess they made with the 6-series so that you can actually buy a PC that’ll run it by March 22nd.

  29. Davie says:

    Damn. I get a halfway decent video card and I’ll be able to run this. That’s a surprise.

  30. Vandelay says:

    Just stumbled across the single player trailer link to .

    Your usual stuff of lots of fast cuts and not really showing you the things you really want to know (like, will this be as open as the previous game?) Still, it does look like it could be fun. Once again, it is clearly console footage, but it looks pretty impressive still. Not really sure where people are getting the impression of this looking worse then the original; as DrGonzo says, pretty much all of the actual footage I’ve seen has been clearly from the console version.

    Anyway, I’ve actually only just bought a copy of the first game, having only previously played Warhead (which was good enough to make me check out the original, but didn’t blow me away.) Looking forward to finally getting my new computer sorted out and being able to run it the way it was meant to be played.

  31. orient says:

    My 3-year-old PC can run this, which is most definitely a *good* thing. A medium-top of the range rig should last 5 years without needing a new CPU & graphics card (at least my wallet thinks so) and thankfully it looks like I’m going to get that.

    Funny thing is, I don’t care if I can run Crisis 2, it’s The Witcher 2 I care about.

    • batfink says:

      Damn right, witcher 2 is going to be epic! Also dont forget guild wars 2

  32. MadmanMike says:

    I’m going to take this time to remind the naysayers that the game’s story was penned, at least in part, by professional science fiction author Richard Morgan.

  33. DOLBYdigital says:

    I noticed that the people who were ‘constantly’ upgrading their PCs were the people who just ‘had’ to play the latest games at full resolution and graphics cranked up. I found that many games could be played if you just *gasp* played them on slightly lower settings.

    There were some games that did need a full upgrade but it wasn’t as bad as most make it out to be except back back in the day. But processor speeds were jumping leaps and bounds back then.

    As far as the current situation, I’m one that would rather see advancements in technology and game design rather than the current rinse, lather and repeat scenario we are stuck in now. It seems like not only are devs stuck using certain coding techniques but many (except indies and modders) are stuck using the same old designs, ideas and gaming patterns. Its sad but not until the next gen of consoles will the big devs try new things with the new processing power that is out there.

  34. lostinwallington says:

    I just gotta say something about this, firsly we have what we call the” trickle down” effect , this applies to all computing hardwares, just take a look at some of the features that are being branded about as military grade components , now this doesn’t mean your new MoBo is going to start brandishing an AK47 but it is using the same components that are being used at the time of manufacturing by the companies that supply millitary grade hardware to governmants, some of these components can be considered to be hardened against EMP for example or just to provide longevity and stability, Eventually these types of hardwares find themselves at a civillian level (trickle down) eventually as firstly PC components and eventualy find thenselves in consoles., secondly if you want this stuff and no one says that you absalutely have to buy this gear you will be paying a premuim until the manufacturing or fabrication plants streamline and become more efficient at doing so.Intel AMD are consantly becoming better at say developing say 45nm chip dies for example , Moores law states that technology or rather proccessors will double in transistor tech every six months or diversly we can settle for the same amount of transistors on a smaller chip die which will become cheaper for us to buy as more chips can be squeezed onto the sillicon wafer and overclock better as they become thermaly superior .We also have architecturaly sounder interconnect pathway designs which stars at the top and end up in the hands of us.Now to try to clear things up consoles will never be as good as PC (we all know that) especially these new 4Gen types they just can’t cut the mustard and most of the RROD with Xbox and the abomnibal performance of the PS3 (remember it’s taken two design overhauls to correct these thermal on both of these consoles issues) have almost made a laughing stock of the console market , and im not being biased i happen to own an Xbox ,Ps3 a nintendo wii and a custom built gaming rig , now for all those out there that say quads are better than dual cores or triple cores offer best bang for buck crap most coders don’t code for more than two cores or multithreading on quads its just not justifiable GPU’s have more grunt than the CPU’s in most cases and its this example that good coders excel themselves with porting PC to consoles after the tech has bedded in and matured , last but not least look at the specs of the Wii its got an IBM CPU at its heart and an ATI Hollywood 243MHz Graphics chip and where did ATI gain the knowledge and fabrication tech so they could deliver them cheaply enough for the mass market the PC platform , PS3’s have the RSX ‘Reality Synthesizer2 from Nvidia again PC tech and to cap it all off Xbox 360 has an IBM chip at its heart with an ATI GPU sorting out the rest, these technologies all trickled down directly from the PC so please if u cant afford new tech by all means grab a console and pray it’ll last and if you can afford the new tech well done because if it wasn’t down to us hardcore bleeding edge tech lovers im sure they would have real nice ATARI Jaguars.