Ryse: Son of Rome Lowers Recommended PC System Requirements

@Attitude2000 Because gs versions sucks ass, and GTS(way better than GS) was dropped after 200 series(300 series was skipped like 800 series but exist as Mversions on laptops), and it all went to GTX, but any version below #60 is crap, the first number indicates mostly software and hardware capabilities, and the second number is for actual power class. Here you can see how they differ from each other performance wise. << LINK REMOVED >>
And here is the joke performance of laptop graphics, it's only slightly better than 700m series. << LINK REMOVED >>

Also gtx 880m is as good as a gtx 660ti or gtx 760, but the mobile version probably won't last as long and will heat up much faster.

<< LINK REMOVED >> I'm all for everyone having personal opinions and all. But you're touting Ryse, Crysis 2, and Crysis 3 as Crytek's defining games?

For me, Crytek has only ever put out two good games: Far Cry, and Crysis. After that, they switched to making linear, simplified and mediocre games.

So, to answer your final question: No, people have apparently forgotten how to have standards though.

<< LINK REMOVED >>

8GB ram is not expensive these days.

<< LINK REMOVED >> no duh. you are talking about a gb of difference between two cards with one closing in on being twice as powerful as the other. A 780 will always stomp a 760. But with 4k textures or intense anti-aliasing, memory does matter. Look up watch dogs reviews that discuss memory needs. But I do agree that high memory on mid range cards doesn't make much sense. I have a 6gb 780 right now, but I only got it because I could evga step up to it for 30 bucks. I figure I would future proof myself when I get around to buying my 4k screen. but even then 3gbs is still going to go a long ways for a lot of years. My 780 will get absolutely killed by the 295x2 any day in the raw power department with frame rates and such even though the 295x2 only has 4gb of useable memory. But I will still be able to manage more skyrim mods than the 295x2.

@demonkingx8 I have a 8350 and I agree sometimes It sucks and just doesn't offer much. But for some games it is extremely well optimized to the point where It performs about the same at a 4770 or better. But it is cheaper, and the reason they keep recommending the fx series is because honestly what else does amd have to offer, nothing. They are obviously going to recommend intel since they perform better but they cant leave the amd owners out so they have to recommend something from that side of processors. I am never going to buy amd processors again unless they get their act together. I have had too many issues with programs freaking out over the false cores and that they don't recognize the processor itself, thank you crysis. The only exception would be a cheap htpc that I would want to throw a cheap cpu in, then I might get an amd 8150 for it. I have not looked much into the apus from amd though. they could be good enough.

<< LINK REMOVED >> Neither. As I wrote on Steam, we had originally posted the requirements to play on 4k as "Recommended". The specs are exactly the same, but we wanted to avoid confusion for anyone thinking they would need those 4k specs to play on lower resolutions like 1080p.

@tomservo51 Even if: so what? Exclusives are a plague anyway.

@tomservo51 It was, and no, Xbox has exclusives, though most aren't full on Exclusives.

That was mighty harsh of me, I apologize

Meant to say 10 dollars

<< LINK REMOVED >> 4 million?

<< LINK REMOVED >> why do you need realistic body damage in a unrealistic game? Legionnaires work in groups and are useless alone. They fight shoulder to shoulder and use their shields to work on an opening for the short sword slash to finish off the opponent. In this game however you walk around with your gladius as it would be some overcharged Thor's Hammer and smash everything out of the way.

So again, you want realistic body part damage on an unrealistic game?

<< LINK REMOVED >> haha get a more powerful video card, cheap man.

<< LINK REMOVED >> You haven't played the game nor has anybody else on PC but you already call it unoptimized? That's kind of idi0tic...

<< LINK REMOVED >> It can't be worse than Dead Rising 3 for PC.

<< LINK REMOVED >> I agree with the rest but 'unoptimised' in your comment just feels atrocious. Especially after Watch_Dogs.

@donmega1 No true Scotsman.

<< LINK REMOVED >> Trust me, there are plenty of "real gamers" who took one look at this garbage and never even picked up the control. :p

<< LINK REMOVED >> x86 all over around