Curse

Hermit · Oct 20, 2006, 02:41 AM // 02:41

Guild Wars Nightfall system requirements:

www.guildwars.com has these as of October 13th. A mere 6 days ago.

www.plaync.com has these as of...I dunno when.

I have checked a few websites selling the game and they have different system requirements. 2 examples would be: Newegg has guildwars.com requirements, yet amazon.uk has the plaync.com requirements. Oddly, most of the sites didn't mention any system requirements at all...

Anyways, I'm a bit concerned because I have a friend who is considering getting Nightfall, but they have a laptop with 512 MB RAM (64MB of which is used for video). Upgrading RAM or getting a new computer is out of the question for them at this time. Also just getting Prophecies or Factions instead wouldn't work because then we wouldn't be able to play in the same area.

I've watched some Nightfall videos and messed around for about 15 minutes on the PvE preview event, and the graphics/action didn't really seem like it would be something any more demanding or different from something seen in Prophecies and Factions...but maybe I didn't get deep enough into the it?

I truely hope the usual system requirements are the correct ones, as this will have a direct impact on whether or not my friend can play the game.

Do any of you know which are the true system requirements? Thanks in advance.

l)l2UNl( · Oct 20, 2006, 04:03 AM // 04:03

i think gw.com has the acurate one cause it seems that what is required for the first two games and since its the official website i would go with that one.
however, if you want a smooter gameplay i would suggest 512 as MINIMUM and graphics card as 128mb or higher is a good idea to have at leas 1.5 ghz processor

dronex · Oct 20, 2006, 07:01 AM // 07:01

The recommended reqs are to run the game im pretty sure its unplayeble with them.
Now the plaync reqs are more realisitc thats what you need to play normaly.

Doomlord_Slayermann · Oct 21, 2006, 06:34 AM // 06:34

Unless Nightfall is giving Guild Wars a serious graphical overhaul, there is no way you should need the playNC specs to play the game at decent settings and get a good FPS. Now, to max all settings out and play the game in IMAX-size resolution, you might want to look at the playNC specs, but really for most people the ArenaNet ones are more accurate.

Thermoblaze · Oct 22, 2006, 08:24 PM // 20:24

guys can i will run the nightfall on this configuration:
AMD Sempron 2500+ 1.75 Ghz
512 Mb RAM
ATI Radeon 9250 128 bit,256 MB
160 Gb HDD
DVD-Rom
WIndows Xp Service Pack 2

thx

Doomlord_Slayermann · Oct 22, 2006, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Knight

guys can i will run the nightfall on this configuration:
AMD Sempron 2500+ 1.75 Ghz
512 Mb RAM
ATI Radeon 9250 128 bit,256 MB
160 Gb HDD
DVD-Rom
WIndows Xp Service Pack 2

thx

Not well, but you should be able to run it.

Gorla · Oct 22, 2006, 08:47 PM // 20:47

Nightfall FAQ has an out of date information, plaync's info is correct, because the same info at the back of the the pre-release pack.
ArenaNet should pay more attention to not to do such mistakes.

Omega X · Oct 22, 2006, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermit

Guild Wars Nightfall system requirements:

www.guildwars.com has these as of October 13th. A mere 6 days ago.

www.plaync.com has these as of...I dunno when.

I have checked a few websites selling the game and they have different system requirements. 2 examples would be: Newegg has guildwars.com requirements, yet amazon.uk has the plaync.com requirements. Oddly, most of the sites didn't mention any system requirements at all...

Anyways, I'm a bit concerned because I have a friend who is considering getting Nightfall, but they have a laptop with 512 MB RAM (64MB of which is used for video). Upgrading RAM or getting a new computer is out of the question for them at this time. Also just getting Prophecies or Factions instead wouldn't work because then we wouldn't be able to play in the same area.

I've watched some Nightfall videos and messed around for about 15 minutes on the PvE preview event, and the graphics/action didn't really seem like it would be something any more demanding or different from something seen in Prophecies and Factions...but maybe I didn't get deep enough into the it?

I truely hope the usual system requirements are the correct ones, as this will have a direct impact on whether or not my friend can play the game.

Do any of you know which are the true system requirements? Thanks in advance.

The Guildwars.com specs should be the accurate ones. The PlayNC site didn't update that yet.

Thermoblaze · Oct 22, 2006, 09:49 PM // 21:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doomlord_Slayermann

Not well, but you should be able to run it.

so i can play NF right??good i also tryed NF world preview and i play very good on high options

so NF here i comes

Ziil · Oct 23, 2006, 10:12 AM // 10:12

The 512 min. RAM is wrong i'm pretty sure because i could play it pretty nicely with my 256 MB

The only thing is that the loading times will be longer on 256 than 512

Syndren · Oct 23, 2006, 10:35 AM // 10:35

Here, I'll tell you my laptop's general specs so you get an idea of how flexible GW is.
IBM T41
Windows XP
1.6Ghz Pentium M
1 GB RAM (use to be 786MB)
Radeon Mobility 7500 with 32 VRAM

I can play on medium gfx settings. Unfortunately it seems that GW no longer recognizes custom video drivers like omegadrivers or the mobility video catalyst hack. So most likely if you have a laptop or a old video card you have to use the official video drivers... (now I'm stuck with a laggy-ish sub-par video driver blahhhh [it only seems to affect gfx loading times by 10 seconds though])

Ran GW on my old high-school's computer (during computer class of course

) during the E3 for everyone event. The specs were something like:
Pentium 2
(can't remeber which windows sry)
256 MB RAM
integrated video card but only goes to 16bit colour quality :S
600MB free HDD space (not including d/l parts of GW)
It still ran fine (laggy when with other people) but in the lowest quality and soloing it was great. :P

l)l2UNl( · Oct 23, 2006, 09:09 PM // 21:09

wow syndren im surprised that it ran on P2... but of course very laggy?

Syndren · Oct 23, 2006, 09:47 PM // 21:47

Yes laggy but during the preview event there was a 'single player' tutorial you had to go through. That ran fine (not laggy when by yourself but in a fight or something equally intense indeed very laggy).
Not sure if GW would run nicely on a P2 _now_ (you can try if you want) but back then it ran surprisingly well. (for a P2 :P)

EDIT:
http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/
to test your system if it meets the 'requirements'.
Don't take its results as the 'final say' though. My laptop miserably fails the sys req test but it can run GW fine.

Loviatar · Oct 23, 2006, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndren

EDIT:
http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/
to test your system if it meets the 'requirements'.
Don't take its results as the 'final say' though. My laptop miserably fails the sys req test but it can run GW fine.

microsoft/futuremark for the real answer

http://gameadvisor.futuremark.com/ga.../game_scan.jsp

Doomlord_Slayermann · Oct 23, 2006, 10:26 PM // 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

microsoft/futuremark for the real answer

http://gameadvisor.futuremark.com/ga.../game_scan.jsp

Yes, because Microsoft is always right about everything. /sarcasm

Since this site only works if you have a browser which Microsoft made (and of course I don't use IE) I'll say thanks but no thanks.

Loviatar · Oct 24, 2006, 12:43 AM // 00:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doomlord_Slayermann

Yes, because Microsoft is always right about everything. /sarcasm

Since this site only works if you have a browser which Microsoft made (and of course I don't use IE) I'll say thanks but no thanks.

microsoft has nothing to do with the test.

the testing is done by FUTUREMARK which is a little company that has been the standard for game testing for years now.

Doomlord_Slayermann · Oct 24, 2006, 01:22 AM // 01:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

microsoft has nothing to do with the test.

the testing is done by FUTUREMARK which is a little company that has been the standard for game testing for years now.

As I said before, the thing only works in IE, and I distance myself quite a ways from the thing. You can't say Microsoft has no hand in it if the test only supports their browser.

Omega X · Oct 24, 2006, 03:33 AM // 03:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doomlord_Slayermann

As I said before, the thing only works in IE, and I distance myself quite a ways from the thing. You can't say Microsoft has no hand in it if the test only supports their browser.

Microsoft has no direct hand in the test. Its just that Futuremark uses ActiveX to do its thing.

Anyway they should update the test for IE7.

Alex Weekes · Oct 24, 2006, 11:12 AM // 11:12

The PlayNC specs are the correct ones. European players should note, however, that installing from disc requires a DVD drive as we are no longer shipping the game on CD (the standard edition in America still comes on CD).

Hermit ... depending on the other specs on the laptop (notably graphics), your friend shouldn't have too many worries. 512 RAM will run the game just fine.

Mushroom · Oct 24, 2006, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doomlord_Slayermann

As I said before, the thing only works in IE, and I distance myself quite a ways from the thing. You can't say Microsoft has no hand in it if the test only supports their browser.

You might as well accuse MicroSoft of having a hand in GW then, because the game only works on Windows. After all, they have to be in bed together, since the games is not written for Linux or Apple.

And it is not to uncommon for companies to do things like this. It is called "working with the most common demoninator". After all, there are dozens of different browsers out there. Are they supposed to rewrite their program to work with every one of them? Of course not. They are going to try and work with the most common Browser, and that happens to be IE.

If this was 1995, they would more then likely would have made it so the program worked with Netscape, since nobody used IE before version 3.