DICE delievers MoH2012 system requirements no xp, no am2, no 9800gt

the medal of honor warfighter system requirements have been made public. here we go:

min:

OS - windows vista/7

ram - 2gb

cpu: core 2 duo / athlon I x2 2.7ghz or higher

gpu: amd radeon hd 3870 / nvidia 8800gts 512mb

HDD: 20gb

recommended:

cpu: core 2 quad/ amd athlon II x4 3ghz or better

ram: 4gb

gpu: amd radeon hd 6950 1gb/ nvidia gtx 560 or better

http://www.game-debate.com/news/?news=1610&game=Medal%20of%20Honor:%20Warfighter&title=Medal%20Of%20Honor%20Warfighter%20System%20Requirements

Hopefully it's not as big of a dissapointment as BF3.

looks meh anyway

Hopefully it's not as big of a dissapointment as BF3.

HyperWarlock

You can't disappoint when you have no expectations.

The game will look and sound great but other than that it will suck gonads me thinks. But glad to see them keep pushing onwards with tech anyway. Also it's using Frostbite 2 so doesn't that eliminate xp and AM2 by default? not the game itself per se, just the engine

really? Sounds rough for a floppy game.dakan45

It's using an updated version of the Frostebite 2.0 engine. It should look better than Battlefield 3. However that's probably the only good thing about the game.

The game will look and sound great but other than that it will suck gonads me thinks. But glad to see them keep pushing onwards with tech anyway. Also it's using Frostbite 2 so doesn't that eliminate xp and AM2 by default? not the game itself per se, just the engine

seanmcloughlin

PC game moves with the times *shock*

My previous 4 year old PC still hits the recommended specs, so it's hardly setting the bar high

Its getting out, but i'm excited to see what daner close can do, they put together a great but short SP Campaign with a great sense of realism in a more arcade way. I'm curious if they can do it with MP or if they will just clone the meh MP Dice did

Is it just me or is anyone else burnt the hell out on these modern warfare shooters? Their all starting to look the same. Guess this will be another one I'll be passing on. Just not a enough difference to warrant paying full price for IMO.slabber44

they are all the same..

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

The game will look and sound great but other than that it will suck gonads me thinks. But glad to see them keep pushing onwards with tech anyway. Also it's using Frostbite 2 so doesn't that eliminate xp and AM2 by default? not the game itself per se, just the engine

ionusX

No it doesn't.

It's a DX10/11 game.

I still don't get how 6950=560. Oh well, the reqs were the same in BF3 and my 6870 runs it just fine.

I still don't get how 6950=560. Oh well, the reqs were the same in BF3 and my 6870 runs it just fine.

cabose38

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

The game will look and sound great but other than that it will suck gonads me thinks. But glad to see them keep pushing onwards with tech anyway. Also it's using Frostbite 2 so doesn't that eliminate xp and AM2 by default? not the game itself per se, just the engine

ionusX

BF3 does not in any way shape or form support DX9, so no, it doesn't run on XP either

[QUOTE="dakan45"]really? Sounds rough for a floppy game.Wasdie

It's using an updated version of the Frostebite 2.0 engine. It should look better than Battlefield 3. However that's probably the only good thing about the game.

MOH: Warfighter right off the bat is a big upgrade over BF3 in terms of visuals and audio and this time around Dangerclose is developing the MP over a full two years rather than DICE developing the MP like they did for MOH(2010) which was rushed due to being between their work on BC2 and starting work on BF3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aiLV4VW8FU&hd=1&t=35sZubinen

Hefty requirements thats for sure.

Now if it is optimized well, like MP3, then I am sure that those recommended reqs would warrant some great frames at high settings.

My hopes anyway^^.

that some pretty high system requirement:?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

It's using an updated version of the Frostebite 2.0 engine. It should look better than Battlefield 3. However that's probably the only good thing about the game.

dakan45

MOH: Warfighter right off the bat is a big upgrade over BF3 in terms of visuals and audio and this time around Dangerclose is developing the MP over a full two years rather than DICE developing the MP like they did for MOH(2010) which was rushed due to being between their work on BC2 and starting work on BF3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aiLV4VW8FU&hd=1&t=35sZubinen

[QUOTE="HyperWarlock"]

Hopefully it's not as big of a dissapointment as BF3.

Wasdie

You can't disappoint when you have no expectations.

I guess those are my thoughts.

The first was just a big letdown, it felt like a buggy, dated Call of Duty rip off.

Here I have higher hopes, but since its coming in without any big hype behind it (like Battlefield 3), then it would be hard for it to qualify as a disappointment unless you really think it will be some amazing improvement from the last and a step forward for the FPS genre.

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="Wasdie"] exactly.[QUOTE="Zubinen"]MOH: Warfighter right off the bat is a big upgrade over BF3 in terms of visuals and audio and this time around Dangerclose is developing the MP over a full two years rather than DICE developing the MP like they did for MOH(2010) which was rushed due to being between their work on BC2 and starting work on BF3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aiLV4VW8FU&hd=1&t=35sZubinen

I think he could be referring to the tendency for death to occur what seems like forever after you get shot. Often I'll drop into cover while under fire or run around a corner and instantly drop dead, other times it will seem like I was instantly killed with an AEK when the guy claims he fired like 7 shots into me.

Is it just me or is anyone else burnt the hell out on these modern warfare shooters? Their all starting to look the same. Guess this will be another one I'll be passing on. Just not a enough difference to warrant paying full price for IMO.slabber44

Congrats on being 4 years overdue.