Curse

awesome sauce · Jan 05, 2006, 04:15 AM // 04:15

I was just wodering what you think is the most hardware-strenuous game out on the market. The one that has the highest system requirements.

I was thinking either BF2 or Doom 3

master_ranger_matt · Jan 05, 2006, 04:21 AM // 04:21

highest ive seen is battlefield 2. but i dont really keep up with pc games...

TheEPIC · Jan 05, 2006, 04:28 AM // 04:28

I think maybe F.E.A.R. That's what I've heard at least.

chris_nin00 · Jan 05, 2006, 04:48 AM // 04:48

Battlefield 2 is rough on your PC.

It actually crashes on me sometimes.

TheEPIC · Jan 05, 2006, 04:52 AM // 04:52

I just checked. Battlefield 2 and F.E.A.R. have almost the excat same system requirements, except F.E.A.R. requires a slightly better graphics card.

awesome sauce · Jan 05, 2006, 05:20 AM // 05:20

actually, it looks like BF2 has higher system requirements but F.E.A.R. has higher system reccomendations.

TheEPIC · Jan 05, 2006, 05:31 AM // 05:31

On checking their minimum requirements at bestbuy.com, they are almost exactly the same. Except, I got the graphics card thing backwards, Battlefield 2 requires a 128MB card while F.E.A.R. only needs a 64MB card.

PieXags · Jan 05, 2006, 06:10 AM // 06:10

Go with battlefield 2. It's rough on almost any PC, which is strange because it doesn't look better than Far Cry did, in fact it actually looks a little worse, even maxed out. Either way, it's a good system test.

EchoSex · Jan 05, 2006, 06:42 AM // 06:42

Battlefield 2 with Special Forces acivated on a 64 player map with the graphics all the way is the HIGHEST resource hog you can get right now. The engine is heavy duty and is a horror to anyone with a mid level PC.

FEAR actually runs a lot easier, and while DOOM 3 is still a heafty benchmarker, BF2 - SF beat the hell out of it because of the factor of large player resources on multiplay.

Lampshade · Jan 05, 2006, 06:51 AM // 06:51

I run BF2 on standard settings and my video card was under $200 US.

PieXags · Jan 05, 2006, 06:53 AM // 06:53

FEAR right now looks a lot better, and runs a lot better. FEAR's a beautiful game and I'd say definately has a leg up over BF2 graphically, but BF2's just got to be the hardest despite it's absolutely shitty ragdoll/weak textures/poor lighting, it's just so huge. Huge maps with huge amounts of people and that's what does it. To be honest I do enjoy playing FEAR more than BF2, not only because it's better looking but because...you can bicycle kick.

Now just wait in twenty years when BF2's turned into todays Doom. (the original)

d4nowar · Jan 05, 2006, 06:58 AM // 06:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEPIC

Battlefield 2 requires a 128MB card while F.E.A.R. only needs a 64MB card.

Anyone that has played F.E.A.R. knows that that isn't true.

TheEPIC · Jan 05, 2006, 06:59 AM // 06:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4nowar

Anyone that has played F.E.A.R. knows that that isn't true.

Thats just what the minimum requirements on the box say.

d4nowar · Jan 05, 2006, 07:07 AM // 07:07

Well minimum requirements are never what anyone should go by. They will give you marginal performance at lowest settings.

I'd say F.E.A.R. needs at least a 128 also, but not giving it a 256 is just an insult to the game.

And after looking at the first post, you contradicted yourself. Hardest System requirements don't always mean most strenuous. They aren't really that accurate, aside from disk space. F.E.A.R. is definitely the most strenuous for graphics cards, and I believe BF 2 requires the processing speed and TONS of ram, but I'm not sure about the ram.

PieXags · Jan 05, 2006, 07:14 AM // 07:14

I'm not so sure about FEAR requiring more vc power---a month ago I had a 9800 pro, could run fear all on high except without soft shadowing and a few of the upper light settings I think, I could hardly run bf2 on medium, I had to have everything on LOW and a few on medium and it still ran like ass. I upgraded to an x850xt pe a couple weeks ago, and now bf2 runs maxed out with infinately better performance despite not changing the rest of my system at all, FEAR (while I haven't tried it) should run about the same, but with me being able to pump up everything else I couldn't before and what not, still shouldn't be as strenuous as bf2 though.

TheEPIC · Jan 05, 2006, 07:15 AM // 07:15

I definately was not advocating going by the minimum requirements. I simply used that as the baseline since I really can't think of any other way to get a fair comparison.

And I think it is fair to say that BF 2 requires a greater amount of RAM seeing as there is going to be alot more going on on a large 64 player multiplayer map in online play then there will be in a F.E.A.R. online game. Also, you should include the nature of the two games with BF2 involving many vehicles as well as a physics system dealing with the landscape.

PieXags · Jan 05, 2006, 07:24 AM // 07:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEPIC

I definately was not advocating going by the minimum requirements. I simply used that as the baseline since I really can't think of any other way to get a fair comparison.

And I think it is fair to say that BF 2 requires a greater amount of RAM seeing as there is going to be alot more going on on a large 64 player multiplayer map in online play then there will be in a F.E.A.R. online game. Also, you should include the nature of the two games with BF2 involving many vehicles as well as a physics system dealing with the landscape.

Heheh, don't think there's too much going on in the physics department for BF2. They've got the absolute most horrible ragdoll I've ever seen in a game, and the vehicles in that game aren't exactly the most advanced when it comes to how they react with the terrain. I like how even in a buggy going at full speed off a ramp you'll just barely roll off the end of it, not very realistic physics for BF2 that's for sure. FEAR on the other hand has the most realistic ragdoll system I've ever seen in a game (yes better than source, source has bodies look like actual rag dolls as opposed to humans with a bone structure and tensed muscles).

Naprius · Jan 05, 2006, 08:09 AM // 08:09

BF2 sucks coz it crashes on my computer.
FEAR sucks coz its scary.

i play: barbie goes to ponyland on her pink scooter with ken on backwards

it works ! (y)

anyway.. im trying to install AOE III but i can't see my virtual disks anymore for some reason.

has anyone played it??? it looks cool

I pwnd U · Jan 05, 2006, 01:30 PM // 13:30

lol naprius.

BF2 is a good game and a good test as ti crashes most of my friends comp 2. and some of them even modified them to run high requirement games!!

guess some game makers like to give gamers a tough time w/ some games!

awesome sauce · Jan 05, 2006, 06:04 PM // 18:04

How do they expect to sell a game like BF2 that requires a computer most people don't have?