Call Of Duty Advance Warfare System Requirements Identical to Ghosts - Polidicks

[URL]http://kotaku.com/your-pc-must-be-this-advanced-to-run-call-of-duty-adva-1618525485[/URL] [QUOTE][B][I]Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare[/I] ([URL="http://store.activision.com/store/atvi/en_US/pd/productID.304157400/sac.true?resid=U@VZ5woydhEAAAdimK4AAAHR&rests=1407539499873#tabs_container"]Source[/URL])[/B][B]OS:[/B] Windows 7 64-Bit / Windows 8 64-Bit [B]HDD:[/B] 40GB HD space [B]Sound:[/B] DirectX Compatible Sound Card [B]DirectX:[/B] 11 [B]Internet:[/B] Broadband connection and service required for Multiplayer Connectivity. Internet connection required for activation. [B]CPU:[/B] Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHZ / AMD Phenom™ X3 8750 2.4 GHZ or better [I]Recommended[/I]: Intel® Core™ i5 – 680 @ 3.6GHz [B]RAM:[/B] 6 GB RAM [I]Recommended[/I]: 8 GB RAM [B]Video:[/B] NVIDIA® GeForce™ GTX GTS 450 / ATI® Radeon™ HD 5870 or better [I]Recommended[/I]: NVIDIA® GeForce™ GTX 760 @ 4GB [B][I]Call of Duty: Ghosts [/I]([URL="http://store.activision.com/store/atvi/en_US/pd/ThemeID.22106500/productID.299198100#tabs_container"]Source[/URL])[/B] [B]OS:[/B] Windows 7 64-Bit / Windows 8 64-Bit [B]HDD:[/B] 40GB HD space [B]Sound:[/B] DirectX Compatible Sound Card [B]DirectX:[/B] 11 [B]Internet:[/B] Broadband connection and service required for Multiplayer Connectivity. Internet connection required for activation. [B]CPU:[/B] Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHZ / AMD Phenom™ X3 8750 2.4 GHZ or better [I]Recommended[/I]: Intel® Core™ i5 – 680 @ 3.6GHz [B]RAM:[/B] 6 GB RAM [I]Recommended[/I]: 8 GB RAM [B]Video:[/B] NVIDIA® GeForce™ GTX GTS 450 / ATI® Radeon™ HD 5870 or better [I]Recommended[/I]: NVIDIA® GeForce™ GTX 760 @ 4GB [/QUOTE] "Next Gen" again

sweet fucking JESUS 40GB.?!

Gotta love that fake 6GB 8GB recommended RAM req, you can crack the game and run it maxed out with 4GB ram @ 60 FPS. [editline]8th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=theevilldeadII;45635903]sweet fucking JESUS 40GB.?![/QUOTE] That's not very uncommon these days. Uncompressed audio files and textures.

Probably because it runs on an identical engine with just a few tweaks to it???

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45635922]Probably because it runs on an identical engine with just a few tweaks to it???[/QUOTE] Um. No, don't you know? They completely revamped the Fish AI!

every game since cod 4 have been identical

To be fair, at least the game looks the part this time. Ghosts was slapped together using all the previous game's assets and it ran like shit.

So will it look as ass as Ghosts did, then?

Hahaha, really? 10 gigs per hour of campaign time? Ghosts ran like dog shit on launch, wonder if this will, too.

[QUOTE=Korova;45635959]To be fair, at least the game looks the part this time. Ghosts was slapped together using all the previous game's assets and it ran like shit.[/QUOTE] So did MW3, as in the only other title this studio has released. Even if they make it look somewhat decent, I'll be surprised if it doesn't run like crap on PC.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;45636067]So did MW3, as in the only other title this studio has released. Even if they make it look somewhat decent, I'll be surprised if it doesn't run like crap on PC.[/QUOTE] That's Infinity Ward's incompetence showing though. Keep in mind that Sledgehammer came in mid-development to polish up the game. That's like having Scorcese coming in to work on Scary Movie 6 two weeks before production wraps up, it isn't a representation of his filmmaking given the material he was given and how far along the project was already. MW3 wasn't looking that great from the gameplay footage they were showing, this one on the other hand looks fantastic. Treyarch's games have been great and those games are some of the best first person shooters in recent years... Regardless of the Call of Duty prefix attatched to World at War and Black Ops I/II. Those games are made by competent developers who actually give a shit about what they put out. I hope that the Naughty Dog staff members that just joined IW will make a difference because I really loved Call of Duty 1/2/Modern Warfare 1 but I haven't really enjoyed anything from them since.

[QUOTE=Delta616;45635905] That's not very uncommon these days. Uncompressed audio files and textures.[/QUOTE] Is there any reason for this or are game devs just really fucking lazy these days.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;45636141]Is there any reason for this or are game devs just really fucking lazy these days.[/QUOTE] Because it's embarrassing to still release 7 GB games in 2014, even though that's exactly how much space a CoD game should rightfully require.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;45636141]Is there any reason for this or are game devs just really fucking lazy these days.[/QUOTE] In games that have super high resolution textures and sounds, yes. In Call Of Duty it's just to assume the marketing illusion of "Next Gen" [editline]8th August 2014[/editline] [IMG]http://puu.sh/aKLXG/4a00ed0edb.jpg[/IMG] Haha, they took down the system reqs.

Am I a bad person if this CoD really interests me. I am a huge sucker for power armor.

[QUOTE=sYnced;45635952]every game since cod 4 have been identical[/QUOTE] COD4 is the last Call of Duty I played. In the terms of games, COD4 was the best (at the time). All COD's since have been shitty.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;45636647]COD4 is the last Call of Duty I played. In the terms of games, COD4 was the best (at the time). All COD's since have been shitty.[/QUOTE] So if COD4 the last COD game you've played, how do you know what the latest CODs are like? Hmmm I for one did genuinely enjoy the gameplay of MW2 and BLOPs (despite how little they actually added to the core gameplay of the game series) but after that point I started questioning what I actually liked about the games. Which was very little. Run and gun just gets repetitive after so many years :v:

Devs are developing for dual layer Blu-Rays on console now, that's why 40-50 GB is getting more common

Call of Duty is like the family comedy of games. They can continue to make the same game with the same formula because no matter what people WILL buy. I own a few CoD games because sometimes I need a mind-numbing fps.

[QUOTE=AcidGravy;45636870]Call of Duty is like the family comedy of games. They can continue to make the same game with the same formula because no matter what people WILL buy. I own a few CoD games because sometimes I need a mind-numbing fps.[/QUOTE] Buy titanfall, its the greatest mindnumbing fps you can find, its basically a better cod [editline]9th August 2014[/editline] Still the publisher is EA so think twice but the game is fun as fuck

[QUOTE=smurfy;45636739]Devs are developing for dual layer Blu-Rays on console now, that's why 40-50 GB is getting more common[/QUOTE] Even then devs are [URL="http://www.shacknews.com/article/84448/the-last-of-us-dev-says-blu-ray-capacity-is"]already getting bottlenecked[/URL] from blu-ray

[QUOTE=Wii60;45636961]Even then devs are [URL="http://www.shacknews.com/article/84448/the-last-of-us-dev-says-blu-ray-capacity-is"]already getting bottlenecked[/URL] from blu-ray[/QUOTE] I'm gonna have to say that sounds pretty bullshit to me Even assuming lossless compression its pretty hard to imagine stuffing 50GB with textures and video from just one game. If the loading time impact caused by compression is the issue, isn't that what installing to the HDD is for?

[QUOTE=Wii60;45636961]Even then devs are [URL="http://www.shacknews.com/article/84448/the-last-redof-us-dev-says-blu-ray-capacity-is"]already getting bottlenecked[/URL] from blu-ray[/QUOTE] If devs stopped doing too many pretenderd cutscenes and just ran them in engine this wouldn't be an issue They look bad to me anyway, they just create a jarring contrast in the difference in visuals and if there was no difference they wouldn't need to be prerendered

I mean, are games all pulling Metal Gear Solids and including feature film amounts of cut scenes now? I've got some 1080p@30FPS game footage lying around encoded in Lagarith lossless video codec that's around 2GB/10 minutes. Even assuming your game was 20GB without any video, which is pretty insane already, using something like Lagarith lossless video codec would let you fit some 75 minutes of (1080p@60) video on the disk. I suppose alternatively you could go maximum over-retard and have raw video at 5G/min, raw textures at 10MB/file and pull some Titanfall shit and have uncompressed sound in every language taking 35GB of the disc, but otherwise I honestly don't understand how modern games can eat up such a ridiculous amount of storage space. Shit like polygon counts, shaders or straight up engine code tend to not take up very much space at all. Unless all your sound is WAV and you have a metric fuckload of it like in Titanfall, sound will always be a pretty minor part of your game's overall size. Texture resolution has like barely changed in the past decade, and 3D model file size barely scales with polycount. Even accounting for the fact that poly counts have also barely changed in the past decade. Seriously where did all the space fucking go?

Cod 5 was good, guys.

[QUOTE=sYnced;45635952]every game since cod 4 have been identical[/QUOTE] Yep, and there is no point getting the game that is identical to cod4.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;45636647]COD4 is the last Call of Duty I played. In the terms of games, COD4 was the best (at the time). All COD's since have been shitty.[/QUOTE] Call of Duty: United Offensive was the best CoD, and will always be the best CoD.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45636165]Because it's embarrassing to still release 7 GB games in 2014, even though that's exactly how much space a CoD game should rightfully require.[/QUOTE] Oh no our team made a really nice looking game and optimised it so embarrassing! It's lazy developers going hurr blu ray has 50gb so let's just fill it all up.

These system req are pretty similar to Dead Rising 3 And not only that but Advanced Warfare looks a lot better Although I'm sure that these are just placeholders

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;45637067]If devs stopped doing too many pretenderd cutscenes and just ran them in engine this wouldn't be an issue They look bad to me anyway, they just create a jarring contrast in the difference in visuals and if there was no difference they wouldn't need to be prerendered[/QUOTE] Yeah, it even says in the article that rendering the cutscenes in real-time would save tremendous amounts of space. I managed to quote the wrong post somehow. :v: