Duke Nukem Forever PC Specs Revealed
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, the game has lack-luster graphics because it was ported to consoles, definitely not because the game has been in development for well over 10 years. Nope, no connection at all...AnythingOutstanding said:
The minimum is a 2600, which is a mid-range gaming card... but even older, so it's even harder to compare to new ones. It has 120 pipelines @ 500 MHz VS the 4250's 40 @ 500 MHz. But the architecture would be very different; the 4250 is newer tech, it's just not made to be powerful.redisforever said:
I'd say no, but it's always possible to get games to run on systems below spec. You'd have to try the demo (if they make one).
I wouldn't buy it first.
Thanks for the help, and I'm pretty sure there will be a demo, given to those who got the Borderlands GOTY edition, but whether it will be released to the general public, we'll see.Pebkac said:
Looks like I'll be able to run it no trouble then. I like having a decent gaming PC as I don't have to worry about which games will and will not run. Any game whose minimum specs are higher than my PC have put themselves way out the market.
Extra languges. Seriously that takes up alot.Easton Dark said:
OT: I knew it was going to be lower, Gearbox only optimized/finished it and prolly converted some textures. It's still an old game on an old engine. Can't wait to turn it up to highest. First new game I can do that with! Stupid 4550...
Well it's not a Monopoly by its own doing. Microsoft has the means and the motivation to make GfWL a serious contender only they seem to take a "monkey with typewriter" approach to actually coding the DRM so that it, well... it just doesn't fucking work.Onyx Oblivion said:
Sony could move into this space as well, if they felt like it but they started as a Consumer Electronics company and many ways really still are, they obviously don't understand networks (fundamentally) they aren't interested in service for gaming on hardware they have no stake in. Apple in much the same position.
The thing is Valve seems to be the only company that actually takes PC gaming seriously, everyone else just seems to treat it like a dying animal to need to squeeze the last drop of blood from. GfWL seems to spend half its time reminding you that Xbox is a great alternative.
GoG.com is a great contender but only on the budget/old titles, it's not really competition.
It looks about as bad as Bioshock, considering it's using the unreal 2.5 engine.
I hope 90% of that CPU power goes to jiggle physics and feces, otherwise I ain't buying.
I hope 90% of that CPU power goes to jiggle physics and feces, otherwise I ain't buying.
Ah the 8800. I had that card for a good five years? I think thats right. Maybe four. It was a sad sad day when it finally crapped out on me.
I've always tried to figure out what recommended specs actually meant though. Sure as hell doesn't mean max settins. We talkin like...this is what you need to make it look as good and run at that lovely 20 fps console players get or like...run at slightly higher settins with 30 fps?
One of these days I shall figure it out.
I've always tried to figure out what recommended specs actually meant though. Sure as hell doesn't mean max settins. We talkin like...this is what you need to make it look as good and run at that lovely 20 fps console players get or like...run at slightly higher settins with 30 fps?
One of these days I shall figure it out.
All this time I was sure I was going to have to wait until I upgraded from this laptop to a decent desktop to play this game; I'm almost certain I can run this, assuming those minimums are actual minimums, and not, say, what you need to get 15 FPS at 800X600. I guess Gearbox wasn't joking about having very little to do to finish what 3D Realms started? Those specs would have been pretty standard back in 2007 or 2008.