Assassin's Creed "remarkably high system requirements"

Gamespot posted the review of Assassins Creed today. One thing that always strucks me on this game and any other game is when they say "high system requirements." This time its remarkably high system requirements.

The PC system requirements are as follows:

• Supported OS: Windows XP or Windows Vista only
• Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel® Pentium® D or AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core® 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better recommended)
• RAM: 1 GB Windows Xp / 2 GB Windows Vista
• 256 MB DirectX® 10.0-compliant video card or DirectX 9.0-compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher
• Sound Card: DirectX 9.0 or 10.0 compliant sound card (5.1 sound card recommended)
• DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0 or DirectX 10.0 libraries (included on disc)
• DVD-ROM: DVD-ROM dual-layer drive or blu-ray disc
• Hard Drive Space: 11 GB
• Peripherals Supported: Keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360 Controller for Windows recommended)

Looking at these specs, someone with a mid range computer would be able to run Assassin's Creed just fine. 2 gigs is now the standard for PCs. All in all I dont see anything that really stuck out as "remarkably high system requirements."

I think the issue of AC's system requirements is far overshadowed by the fact that GameSpot got a PC review out on release day.

What's up with that?

Most GameSpot reviewers will mark a PC game down on hardware requirements. I was surprised that Crysis got a 9.5. With requirements like that, I was thinking it'd run a high 7 at best!

But anyway, I think the issue of AC's system requirements is far overshadowed by the fact that GameSpot got a PC review out on release day.

But on closer inspection, I see that the guy who reviewed the PC version also reviewed the console versions, so it was probably a copy and paste job.

Too bad I have to wait until 11th here in UK. And Ubisoft is a European company! Bah.

It's a bit dissappointing when you want to get a PC port of a console game and want to use your extra power to have it look even better, just to find out that you need that extra power just to play it reasonably.

A pretty recent port that runs great on PC and ia good example of optimization is Gears of War on the PC.

A bad port is this game and the initial release Guitar Hero III, which ran abysmally until the first patch, but for some reason still can't run on low end systems we know are more powerful than a ps2.

I realize Gears of War my have more of an advantage because the engine was built and tailored to each system prior to game creation whereas the later two titles would most likely need the entire engine ported as well which I can imagine is always difficult going from API to API.

It's a bit dissappointing when you want to get a PC port of a console game and want to use your extra power to have it look even better, just to find out that you need that extra power just to play it reasonably.

A pretty recent port that runs great on PC and is a good example of optimization is Gears of War on the PC.

A bad port is this game and the initial release of Guitar Hero III, which ran abysmally until the first patch, but for some reason still can't run on low end systems we know are more powerful than a ps2.

I realize Gears of War my have more of an advantage because the engine was built and tailored to each system prior to game creation whereas the later two titles would most likely need the entire engine ported as well which I can imagine is always difficult going from API to API.

But on closer inspection, I see that the guy who reviewed the PC version also reviewed the console versions, so it was probably a copy and paste job.mfsa

Yeah, most of it is copy and paste, but it wouldn't make sense to rewrite the description of the game since the basic content in all versions are the same.

[QUOTE="mfsa"]But on closer inspection, I see that the guy who reviewed the PC version also reviewed the console versions, so it was probably a copy and paste job.Einhanderkiller

Yeah, most of it is copy and paste, but it wouldn't make sense to rewrite the description of the game since the basic content in all versions are the same.

hey, interesting sig! did you draw them by any chance? the heavy, though, just doesn't look all that...heavy.

[QUOTE="mfsa"]But on closer inspection, I see that the guy who reviewed the PC version also reviewed the console versions, so it was probably a copy and paste job.Einhanderkiller

Yeah, most of it is copy and paste, but it wouldn't make sense to rewrite the description of the game since the basic content in all versions are the same.

hey, interesting sig! did you draw them by any chance? the heavy, though, just doesn't look all that...heavy. and they all look like they have braces on. :) but nice drawings overall.

a good thing, cuz it just means i won't be getting it. with some people finding the game too repetitive and the gameplay not fully realized and the system requirements being what it is and the pc port being delayed so excessively (with no benefits whatsoever from the delay), i'm glad to be passing this (another) poorly-optimized ubisoft product.fireandcloud

well it really isn't that bad a port. i saw the ign review and from what they said it seemed pretty good. they even said that the controls were nice infact they were better than controllers. also the new missions did removed some of the repititivenes of the game

a good thing, cuz it just means i won't be getting it. with some people finding the game too repetitive and the gameplay not fully realized and the system requirements being what it is and the pc port being delayed so excessively (with no benefits whatsoever from the delay), i'm glad to be passing this (another) poorly-optimized ubisoft product.fireandcloud

well it really isn't that bad a port. i saw the ign review and from what they said it seemed pretty good. they even said that the controls using kb +m was pretty good, infact they said it was better than controllers. also the new missions did removed some of the repititivenes of the game

As far as I know, Assassin's Creed is the first game to require a dual-core CPU. My Dell XPS laptop, a gaming PC capable of running Crysis at medium-high settings quite respectably, does not meet the minimum system requirements for Assassin's Creed. Relatively speaking, when you behold a game like Crysis at highest settings, it's technical achievements are quite marvelous. AC is a gorgeous game, but one that does not meet the visual standards of Crysis, which remains in a class on its own. Relatively speaking, it makes little sense for a console-to-pc port to sport such a requirement. In other words, it is "remarkably high." As the poster above mentions, "2.6 C2D? That's a bit much."

Note as well that while I am happy that it runs nicely for some, that isn't the case for many. Of the three systems I played on, two of them had noticeable issues with sound bugs, one of them ran into installation errors that I had to work around, and the other experienced unreasonable slowdown. I am not fair to readers if I don't mention that the game might be problematic--and yes, it requires more from a system than we believe it reasonably should.

I spent my entire weekend playing Assassin's Creed. It was my personal favorite game of 2007, and this made for a fourth completion of the game. The new missions were mostly a wash, imo. Escort missions don't fit, as I mention in the review, because a scripted guard attack feels out of place and contrived in the sandbox world, nor does a race seem all that interesting. On the other hand, I enjoyed rooftop assassinations and guard flinging.

I do feel that a gamepad is needed to feel one of the game's most important aspects--buttons mapped to represent Altair's body. The keyboard and mouse controls are actually quite good (and considering Ubi was responsible for the awful Resident Evil 4 console-to-pc port, I think this is a miracle in itself), but I do recommend using a gamepad, as it's more comfortable and better represents how button placement corresponds with Altair's actions.

But trust me--my coworkers are probably sick of me talking incessantly about Assassin's Creed since last November. There is no reason for PC owners to feel as though the game is slighted. Like many games, Assassin's Creed is console-centric, but as long as you have a good PC and can avoid bugs (which are often a crapshoot in PC games), it's a game you should own, as the glowing review should express.

And yes, much of the text is taken from the previous review. As our review FAQ, available from the help link on every GameSpot page, states:GameSpot reserves the right to reuse review text for multiplatform games, especially if the game has the same exact features on different platforms.

In any case, I hope that clarifies our position on Assassin's Creed on the PC, though the best way of determining that is to read the review. It's a long one :)

As far as I know, Assassin's Creed is the first game to require a dual-core CPU. My Dell XPS laptop, a gaming PC capable of running Crysis at medium-high settings quite respectably, does not meet the minimum system requirements for Assassin's Creed. Relatively speaking, when you behold a game like Crysis at highest settings, it's technical achievements are quite marvelous. AC is a gorgeous game, but one that does not meet the visual standards of Crysis, which remains in a class on its own. In light of that, it makes little sense for a console-to-pc port to sport such a requirement. In other words, it is "remarkably high." As the poster above mentions, "2.6 C2D? That's a bit much."

Note as well that while I am happy that it runs nicely for some, that isn't the case for many. Of the three systems I played on, two of them had noticeable issues with sound bugs, one of them ran into installation errors that I had to work around, and the other experienced unreasonable slowdown. I am not fair to readers if I don't mention that the game might be problematic--and yes, it requires more from a system than we believe it reasonably should.

I spent my entire weekend playing Assassin's Creed. It was my personal favorite game of 2007 (please note my avatar), and this made for a fourth completion of the game. The new missions were mostly a wash, imo. Escort missions don't fit, as I mention in the review, because a scripted guard attack feels out of place and contrived in the sandbox world, nor does a race seem all that interesting. On the other hand, I enjoyed rooftop assassinations and guard flinging.

I do feel that a gamepad is needed to feel one of the game's most important aspects--buttons mapped to represent Altair's body. The keyboard and mouse controls are actually quite good (and considering Ubi was responsible for the awful Resident Evil 4 console-to-pc port, I think this is a miracle in itself), but I do recommend using a gamepad, as it's more comfortable and better represents how button placement corresponds with Altair's actions.

But trust me--my coworkers are probably sick of me talking incessantly about Assassin's Creed since last November. There is no reason for PC owners to feel as though we've slighted you. Like many games, Assassin's Creed is console-centric, but as long as you have a good PC and can avoid bugs (which are often a crapshoot in PC games), it's a game you should own, as the glowing review should express.

And yes, much of the text is taken from the previous review. As our review FAQ, available from the help link on every GameSpot page, states: GameSpot reserves the right to reuse review text for multiplatform games, especially if the game has the same exact features on different platforms.

In any case, I hope that clarifies our position on Assassin's Creed on the PC, though the best way of determining that is to read the review. It's a long one :)

lol guys seriously, you dont want this game.

haha nah i shouldnt say that, but i have finished it on PS3. the visuals are amazing, i cant wait to see what the PC can do, but the PS3 version wasnt exaxctly bug-free and 100% smooth running, so i doubt the ported PC version will be any better. when is a port better? sure Gears of War was pretty successful, but that was one of the very few.

besides, this game is sooooo long and repetetive..will be interesting to see if we get the same mixed and negative reactions from the PC world as we did from the console world.

after seeing the size of the game, its environments, texturing, the pure visual quality...PCs are gonna die hard in the arse trying to max this one out at a PC gaming quality level.

According to the Steam Survery, about 80% have more than 1gb, and about 40% have dual core cpus or better.

So you are already cutting out more than around 60% of the potential gamers I guess, assuming steam is about average in terms of the PC game market. I don't think the recommended are that high though, just the min.

According to the Steam Survery, about 80% have more than 1gb, and about 40% have dual core cpus or better.

So you are already cutting out more than around 60% of the potential gamers I guess, assuming steam is about average in terms of the PC game market. I don't think the recommended are that high though, just the min.

I think there are cases worse in previous history, SC:DA and several other games required SM 3.0 when like 30% had it. Or with DX:IW geforce 2/4 users were completely shut down.

If you want to take it to the extremes, Halo 2 had a terribly system requirement (Vista) that only about 10% of users had, now of course there was a patch for XP users, but still Halo 2 should have been punished quite a bit for requiring something that so few people already have.

Most GameSpot reviewers will mark a PC game down on hardware requirements. I was surprised that Crysis got a 9.5. With requirements like that, I was thinking it'd run a high 7 at best!

mfsa

Crysis has optomised graphics. Playing Crysis on lowest settings still looks okay compared to other games, yet the requirements are very lenient for it. The Very High options for Crysis graphics is basically an "optional" setting for hardcore gamers, so there is no need to criticise Crysis over system requirements, due to scalability. On the other hand, games like NeverWinter Nights 2 DO deserve criticism for high requirements, because the requirements vs graphics quality ratio is very bad in that game. Take a look at a screenshot of NWN2, and you will be surprised at how high the requirements are for a game that does not really have good graphics.

sure Gears of War was pretty successful, but that was one of the very few.

gtarmanrob

Took about 3 months to get saves working. Great fps on modest pc's but even people with high end rigs complained about frequent stuttering.

[QUOTE="gtarmanrob"]

sure Gears of War was pretty successful, but that was one of the very few.

Cranler

Took about 3 months to get saves working. Great fps on modest pc's but even people with high end rigs complained about frequent stuttering.

lol yeah exactly, hence why i said 'pretty successful'. when i started gears of war, the bug fixes were out so i didnt cop all that first release crap, but i read about it.

and lets not forget the disaster that was known as Lost Planet, although again that FINALLY sorted itself out, if you had a good high end Nvidia card.

im not gonna pass judgment until the games actually released, but i suspect those 'high' system requirements are within good reason.

All I've got to say is....

....man is AC BORING. I put in a good bit of time on my friend's ps3 and was bored to tears 75% of the time.

As far as I know, Assassin's Creed is the first game to require a dual-core CPU. My Dell XPS laptop, a gaming PC capable of running Crysis at medium-high settings quite respectably, does not meet the minimum system requirements for Assassin's Creed. Relatively speaking, when you behold a game like Crysis at highest settings, it's technical achievements are quite marvelous. AC is a gorgeous game, but one that does not meet the visual standards of Crysis, which remains in a class on its own. In light of that, it makes little sense for a console-to-pc port to sport such a requirement. In other words, it is "remarkably high." As the poster above mentions, "2.6 C2D? That's a bit much."

Note as well that while I am happy that it runs nicely for some, that isn't the case for many. Of the three systems I played on, two of them had noticeable issues with sound bugs, one of them ran into installation errors that I had to work around, and the other experienced unreasonable slowdown. I am not fair to readers if I don't mention that the game might be problematic--and yes, it requires more from a system than we believe it reasonably should.

I spent my entire weekend playing Assassin's Creed. It was my personal favorite game of 2007 (please note my avatar), and this made for a fourth completion of the game. The new missions were mostly a wash, imo. Escort missions don't fit, as I mention in the review, because a scripted guard attack feels out of place and contrived in the sandbox world, nor does a race seem all that interesting. On the other hand, I enjoyed rooftop assassinations and guard flinging.

I do feel that a gamepad is needed to feel one of the game's most important aspects--buttons mapped to represent Altair's body. The keyboard and mouse controls are actually quite good (and considering Ubi was responsible for the awful Resident Evil 4 console-to-pc port, I think this is a miracle in itself), but I do recommend using a gamepad, as it's more comfortable and better represents how button placement corresponds with Altair's actions.

But trust me--my coworkers are probably sick of me talking incessantly about Assassin's Creed since last November. There is no reason for PC owners to feel as though we've slighted you. Like many games, Assassin's Creed is console-centric, but as long as you have a good PC and can avoid bugs (which are often a crapshoot in PC games), it's a game you should own, as the glowing review should express.

And yes, much of the text is taken from the previous review. As our review FAQ, available from the help link on every GameSpot page, states: GameSpot reserves the right to reuse review text for multiplatform games, especially if the game has the same exact features on different platforms.

In any case, I hope that clarifies our position on Assassin's Creed on the PC, though the best way of determining that is to read the review. It's a long one :)

Kevin-V

Doesn't really matter how well it runs on anyones system... the game is one of the most overrated games this generation, should have gotten a 6 IMO.sadikovic

Could you say why? I was considering getting this game...I take it is quite similar to space invaders yes?

As far as I know, Assassin's Creed is the first game to require a dual-core CPU. My Dell XPS laptop, a gaming PC capable of running Crysis at medium-high settings quite respectably, does not meet the minimum system requirements for Assassin's Creed. Relatively speaking, when you behold a game like Crysis at highest settings, it's technical achievements are quite marvelous. AC is a gorgeous game, but one that does not meet the visual standards of Crysis, which remains in a class on its own. In light of that, it makes little sense for a console-to-pc port to sport such a requirement. In other words, it is "remarkably high." As the poster above mentions, "2.6 C2D? That's a bit much."

Kevin-V

The system requirements I listed requires a Pentium D 2.6 ghz or Athlon 4400+ CPU. This is technology that have been avaliable for a little under 3 years now. Its inevitable for games that do require for require a dual core CPU. If Assassin's Creed didnt come out, someone else will require a dual core CPU.

Someone who doesnt have a dual core CPU by now, should buy or build a whole new computer. Other games in the future will require the same requirements as Assassin's Creed.

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]

As far as I know, Assassin's Creed is the first game to require a dual-core CPU. My Dell XPS laptop, a gaming PC capable of running Crysis at medium-high settings quite respectably, does not meet the minimum system requirements for Assassin's Creed. Relatively speaking, when you behold a game like Crysis at highest settings, it's technical achievements are quite marvelous. AC is a gorgeous game, but one that does not meet the visual standards of Crysis, which remains in a class on its own. In light of that, it makes little sense for a console-to-pc port to sport such a requirement. In other words, it is "remarkably high." As the poster above mentions, "2.6 C2D? That's a bit much."

Jd1680a

The system requirements I listed requires a Pentium D 2.6 ghz or Athlon 4400+ CPU. This is technology that have been avaliable for a little under 3 years now. Its inevitable for games that do require for require a dual core CPU. If Assassin's Creed didnt come out, someone else will require a dual core CPU.

Someone who doesnt have a dual core CPU by now, should buy or build a whole new computer. Other games in the future will require the same requirements as Assassin's Creed.

I agree that it is inevitable. I don't agree, however, that the technology behind Assassin's Creed should require such stringent system needs, when more technologically impressive games require less. I felt the same way about, for example, Lost Planet, which required a beefy system--but wasn't a standard-setter (and in DX10, the performance hit wasn't worth the practically imperceptible quality increase). And in that case, we noted such in the review.

To the above poster, Crysis does not require a dual-core CPU. Its minimum requirements list a 2.8 GHz P4, or a 2.0 GHz Core Duo. The video card and memory requirements are practically identical; I am now looking at the official list of supported cards for Assassin's Creed, and minimum nVidia card is a 6800; minimum ATI card is an x1600. That means that AC has a slightly higher requirement for ATI card owners, since Crysis supports the X800 series, while AC does not.

I think for most reasonable people, the fact that Assassin's Creed requires (rather than recommends) specs more advanced than the current visual standard-setter on the platform requires, without delivering a product that is superior in visual quality to that standard-setter, makes those requirements steep.

I am not trying to be argumentative here; but I do want you to understand that these things were considered, and that I stand behind the claim that the system requirements for Assassin's Creed are a bit excessive. I think, however, that by focusing on that one aspect, that you miss the bigger picture, which is that it is an excellent game worth playing. If you have a system that meets the requirements, in the end there is simply no need to be concerned with the subject. For those that don't have a box as impressive as yours or mine, it's information worth considering.

[QUOTE="sadikovic"]Doesn't really matter how well it runs on anyones system... the game is one of the most overrated games this generation, should have gotten a 6 IMO.biggest_loser

Could you say why? I was considering getting this game...I take it is quite similar to space invaders yes?

The story has about 1 twist and you can probably see it coming a mile away, the missions aren't particularly interesting and its nearly impossible to actually assassinate a target with the wristblade and get away.

That said if you like being able to climb around and jump off tall things you'll probably have fun. The freedom to explore the and climb about is probably the only reason I still play it and games like it. Its kind of like Spiderman 2 without a goofy costume, webswinging and played in a setting from several hundred years earlier.

[QUOTE="Jd1680a"][QUOTE="Kevin-V"]

As far as I know, Assassin's Creed is the first game to require a dual-core CPU. My Dell XPS laptop, a gaming PC capable of running Crysis at medium-high settings quite respectably, does not meet the minimum system requirements for Assassin's Creed. Relatively speaking, when you behold a game like Crysis at highest settings, it's technical achievements are quite marvelous. AC is a gorgeous game, but one that does not meet the visual standards of Crysis, which remains in a class on its own. In light of that, it makes little sense for a console-to-pc port to sport such a requirement. In other words, it is "remarkably high." As the poster above mentions, "2.6 C2D? That's a bit much."

Kevin-V

The system requirements I listed requires a Pentium D 2.6 ghz or Athlon 4400+ CPU. This is technology that have been avaliable for a little under 3 years now. Its inevitable for games that do require for require a dual core CPU. If Assassin's Creed didnt come out, someone else will require a dual core CPU.

Someone who doesnt have a dual core CPU by now, should buy or build a whole new computer. Other games in the future will require the same requirements as Assassin's Creed.

I agree that it is inevitable. I don't agree, however, that the technology behind Assassin's Creed should require such stringent system needs, when more technologically impressive games require less. I felt the same way about, for example, Lost Planet, which required a beefy system--but wasn't a standard-setter (and in DX10, the performance hit wasn't worth the practically imperceptible quality increase). And in that case, we noted such in the review.

To the above poster, Crysis does not require a dual-core CPU. Its minimum requirements list a 2.8 GHz P4, or a 2.0 GHz Core Duo. The video card and memory requirements are practically identical; I am now looking at the official list of supported cards for Assassin's Creed, and minimum nVidia card is a 6800; minimum ATI card is an x1600. That means that AC has a slightly higher requirement for ATI card owners, since Crysis supports the X800 series, while AC does not.

I think for most reasonable people, the fact that Assassin's Creed requires (rather than recommends) specs more advanced than the current visual standard-setter on the platform requires, without delivering a product that is superior in visual quality to that standard-setter, makes those requirements steep.

I am not trying to be argumentative here; but I do want you to understand that these things were considered, and that I stand behind the claim that the system requirements for Assassin's Creed are a bit excessive. I think, however, that by focusing on that one aspect, that you miss the bigger picture, which is that it is an excellent game worth playing. If you have a system that meets the requirements, in the end there is simply no need to be concerned with the subject. For those that don't have a box as impressive as yours or mine, it's information worth considering.

Lets just put it this way, if you are able to play Crysis no matter what kind of specs you have, then you could play Assassins Creed. Crysis is the most hardware demanding game in the world right now. Ubisoft most likely tested a variety of hardware including single core and multicore processors. They probably decided it would best for the consumer to at least have a dual core cpu to have a more enjoyable experience playing the game. I wouldnt doubt a Pentium 4 3.0 ghz and higher CPU can run Assassins Creed.

[QUOTE="Jd1680a"][QUOTE="Kevin-V"]

As far as I know, Assassin's Creed is the first game to require a dual-core CPU. My Dell XPS laptop, a gaming PC capable of running Crysis at medium-high settings quite respectably, does not meet the minimum system requirements for Assassin's Creed. Relatively speaking, when you behold a game like Crysis at highest settings, it's technical achievements are quite marvelous. AC is a gorgeous game, but one that does not meet the visual standards of Crysis, which remains in a class on its own. In light of that, it makes little sense for a console-to-pc port to sport such a requirement. In other words, it is "remarkably high." As the poster above mentions, "2.6 C2D? That's a bit much."

Kevin-V

The system requirements I listed requires a Pentium D 2.6 ghz or Athlon 4400+ CPU. This is technology that have been avaliable for a little under 3 years now. Its inevitable for games that do require for require a dual core CPU. If Assassin's Creed didnt come out, someone else will require a dual core CPU.

Someone who doesnt have a dual core CPU by now, should buy or build a whole new computer. Other games in the future will require the same requirements as Assassin's Creed.

I agree that it is inevitable. I don't agree, however, that the technology behind Assassin's Creed should require such stringent system needs, when more technologically impressive games require less. I felt the same way about, for example, Lost Planet, which required a beefy system--but wasn't a standard-setter (and in DX10, the performance hit wasn't worth the practically imperceptible quality increase). And in that case, we noted such in the review.

To the above poster, Crysis does not require a dual-core CPU. Its minimum requirements list a 2.8 GHz P4, or a 2.0 GHz Core Duo. The video card and memory requirements are practically identical; I am now looking at the official list of supported cards for Assassin's Creed, and minimum nVidia card is a 6800; minimum ATI card is an x1600. That means that AC has a slightly higher requirement for ATI card owners, since Crysis supports the X800 series, while AC does not.

I think for most reasonable people, the fact that Assassin's Creed requires (rather than recommends) specs more advanced than the current visual standard-setter on the platform requires, without delivering a product that is superior in visual quality to that standard-setter, makes those requirements steep.

I am not trying to be argumentative here; but I do want you to understand that these things were considered, and that I stand behind the claim that the system requirements for Assassin's Creed are a bit excessive. I think, however, that by focusing on that one aspect, that you miss the bigger picture, which is that it is an excellent game worth playing. If you have a system that meets the requirements, in the end there is simply no need to be concerned with the subject. For those that don't have a box as impressive as yours or mine, it's information worth considering.