highest system requirements game to date

What are the top 3 games that have the highest RECOMMENDED system requirements to this day?

I would say

1. crysis (gpu demanding)

2. assasins creed (cpu)

3. the witcher (cpu)

I would say:

1. Crysis

2. Assassin's Creed

3. Supreme Commander

SupCom has some pretty hardcore requirements, and in some of the bigger games on bigger maps, it gets crazy sluggish no matter what kind of hardware you're packing.

1. crysis.

2. assassin's creed

3. nwn2

nwn2 definitely has higher system requirements than the witcher (not sure about supreme commander). my pc can't handle nwn2 at its max at all (gets all choppy; framerate in single digits) but it can handle the witcher at max without too many problems.

SupCom really sucks up all the power they PC has...

Crysis is Crysis so... :P

1. crysis.

2. assassin's creed

3. nwn2

nwn2 definitely has higher system requirements than the witcher (not sure about supreme commander). my pc can't handle nwn2 at its max at all (gets all choppy; framerate in single digits) but it can handle the witcher at max without too many problems.

fireandcloud

poor optimization? which looks better, though?

You guys really think AC is the 2nd highest?

I only have a X2 3800+ and X1900XT yet it runs great for me. Just turned post-processing off and all the other video settings down 1 notch. Looks great, runs great.

1. crysis.

2. assassin's creed

3. nwn2

nwn2 definitely has higher system requirements than the witcher (not sure about supreme commander). my pc can't handle nwn2 at its max at all (gets all choppy; framerate in single digits) but it can handle the witcher at max without too many problems.

fireandcloud

the first two sure...nwn2 = no. NWN2 does not have high requirements at all. Supreme Commander is much more taxing on your system. Especially on multiplayer, it kills.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

1. crysis.

2. assassin's creed

3. nwn2

nwn2 definitely has higher system requirements than the witcher (not sure about supreme commander). my pc can't handle nwn2 at its max at all (gets all choppy; framerate in single digits) but it can handle the witcher at max without too many problems.

BangsLiekWhoa

the first two sure...nwn2 = no. NWN2 does not have high requirements at all. Supreme Commander is much more taxing on your system. Especially on multiplayer, it kills.

fine, i never played supreme commander. but i know from all the games i own, crysis is the most taxing and nwn2 the second most. and i have most of the major games that have been released.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

1. crysis.

2. assassin's creed

3. nwn2

nwn2 definitely has higher system requirements than the witcher (not sure about supreme commander). my pc can't handle nwn2 at its max at all (gets all choppy; framerate in single digits) but it can handle the witcher at max without too many problems.

Kh1ndjal

poor optimization? which looks better, though?

is that a question or are you saying that nwn2 looks better than the witcher. cuz, in my opinion, nwn2 looks terrible (looks like an extremely sunny and shiny version of nwn), while the witcher looks pretty good.

1. Crysis

2. Supreme Commander

3. Everquest 2 - Terribly optimized, can't even max it out on an E6600 and 8800GTS.

i just bought assassin's creed, and i must say that it's not as taxing as people have initially feared. i have a d2.8, 8600gt, 4gb ram (not the best rig around; not by a long shot), and it can play it 1280x1024, everything on the highest settings (the fourth one for each except the aa (set to 2)), and it runs it pretty well (although when things get hectic, it slows down quite a bit). so i would put crysis no. 1 on my list, nwn2 no. 2, and bump ac down to no. 3. still haven't tried supreme commander.

why is it that an older game like nwn2 struggles so badly on my rig when it runs newer games just fine. and nwn2 is pretty ugly, imo. i just don't get it.

ac is pretty good, btw. and really pretty. looks like cod4 art style but with a lot more detail.

Crysis - even the most high-end GPUs and SLI setups struggle to run the game gracefully on higher settings.

Supreme Commander - incredibly CPU intensive, and essentially requires a powerful multicore CPU. I swear you would need a skulltrail setup to run the largest maps with the maximum number of AI opponents smoothly.

1. solitaire

2. mine sweeper

1. solitaire

2. mine sweeper

ct1615

You're so funny. When I came to this thread, I had no idea someone would use Pong/tetris/any-other-old-game in their list to be clever.

AC, simply because it's the first game to need a dual-core.

I can play Crysis on my 4 years old "rig", all low except the physics, at a steady 20 fps, while AC kills my system.

AC is also not that advanced. SupCom uses a crapload of units, more than AC and which do the same simple tasks, but it doesn't eat my CPU like that.

Crysis is like Far Cry, a generation ahead, but very well optimised.

Crysis, of course. I haven't been on a rig yet that lets you max out ALL the settings without screwing up the framerate.

Supreme Commander: Meh. I dunno about you, but I somehow question the wisdom of attaching just about every single physics variable to every little object in the game. Huge CPU drainer.

AC, simply because it's the first game to need a dual-core.

I can play Crysis on my 4 years old "rig", all low except the physics, at a steady 20 fps, while AC kills my system.

AC is also not that advanced. SupCom uses a crapload of units, more than AC and which do the same simple tasks, but it doesn't eat my CPU like that.

Crysis is like Far Cry, a generation ahead, but very well optimised.

Baranga

HE means that AC has the highest requirement..

He got a point its the 1st game that ever require dual core processor..

1) assassin's creed

2) stranglehold

3) crysis.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

AC, simply because it's the first game to need a dual-core.

I can play Crysis on my 4 years old "rig", all low except the physics, at a steady 20 fps, while AC kills my system.

AC is also not that advanced. SupCom uses a crapload of units, more than AC and which do the same simple tasks, but it doesn't eat my CPU like that.

Crysis is like Far Cry, a generation ahead, but very well optimised.

OoSuperMarioO

[QUOTE="ct1615"]

1. solitaire

2. mine sweeper

Begemott

You're so funny. When I came to this thread, I had no idea someone would use Pong/tetris/any-other-old-game in their list to be clever.

I'll be here all week....try the blue plate special!

why has stranglehold only come up once? it has higher recommended requirements than crysis. and isnt the question "what are the highest system reqs to date?" not which is the most taxing.jpph

it is, but who wants to just list what has the highest minimum system requirement? i'd much rather talk about actual game performance. i'm sure others feel the same way, and hence the discussions.

Crysis (but to be fair, it is pretty damn scaleable for how good it can look)

Tie between WiC and SupCom...I want to say WiC because it will run sluggish no matter what, but if you have a Dual Core SupCom is silky smooth.

Lost Planet: I only played the demo but it..was...CHOPPY!

on a sidenote, folks, we are talking about system requirememnts, not what game is most poorly optimized.

So NWN2 will run on a lot of PCs, but its poorly optimized.

AC, simply because it's the first game to need a dual-core.

I can play Crysis on my 4 years old "rig", all low except the physics, at a steady 20 fps, while AC kills my system.

AC is also not that advanced. SupCom uses a crapload of units, more than AC and which do the same simple tasks, but it doesn't eat my CPU like that.

Crysis is like Far Cry, a generation ahead, but very well optimised.

Baranga

I completly agree.

CRYSIS is verry well optimised so it can run good and beautifull even on older systems unlike soem other games like NWN 2 and AC

i agree that nwn doesnt have particularly high requirments to RUN the game, but its very poorly optimised. i have a pretty good rig and i have to turn all shadows off to get an acceptable FR i.e. 20 FPS

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

AC, simply because it's the first game to need a dual-core.

I can play Crysis on my 4 years old "rig", all low except the physics, at a steady 20 fps, while AC kills my system.

AC is also not that advanced. SupCom uses a crapload of units, more than AC and which do the same simple tasks, but it doesn't eat my CPU like that.

Crysis is like Far Cry, a generation ahead, but very well optimised.

Lidve

yeah but can you max out crysis with an 8600gts? because you can max out AC with a 8600gts

Crysis or Assassin's Creed, they are both about the same.linkthewindow

I guess you people havn't played a game called Flight Simulator X, try maxing that game...Mike1234234

FSX = System Hog on Max Settings

E:TW is pretty demanding. Even the campain map stutters on my rig.

Crysis

Lost Planet

Maybe Cryostasis?

And Company of Heroes really bogs down for me with 4 vs 4, but maybe its just my machine.

Like others said crysis and supreme commander

Sins of solar empires is quite panishing on the cpu as well when huge battles are happening ( my 2,4ghz q6600 has alot of troubles in epic battles )

unnecessarily gta IV. It's like an emulator port.

Have not played SupCom, but I agree on Crysis. The other two are Lost Planet and Assassins Creed, I guess. I just got into a city and the framerate is a little erratic. Maybe I have too much AA on, I'll play around with the settings.artur79

I can somewhat understand GTA4's graphics requirements, it's highest level settings will need 512 MB to 1 GB of video memory because of all the unique textures, shaders, models, and the draw distance, though Crysis is still a better looking game due to the better artistry and of course better optimization as well as the usage of lots of common textures/shaders across the environment. What gets me and so many others is the need for a quad-core CPU just to get it to run properly. When it comes to gaming, the 360's Xenon is no more powerful than an Athlon x2 4400 from what I hear. The desktop I used to have had an Athlon x2 5600 and what it did with running Crysis' physics engine and everything else in the editor was definitly more impressive than anything I've seen on the 360 when it comes to game orchestration with the CPU. I would create over 50 plus enemies on screen at once, and the CPU had no real problem handling the AI, the physics as I nailed them with my SCAR rifle and things went flying from explosions, not to mention all the other basic things going on like trees and objects breaking. That's why GTA4's need for a quad-core is absolutely rediculous, unless the consoles barely have the CPU power to maintain framerate at the same level as their GPUs, in which case I could see the need for a quad-core just for nice smooth 60 FPS gameplay. But ulgh..........it's just bad x86 optimization. Lazy jerks. Most every other multiplatformer only needs a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz minimum, which clock per clock is about a quarter as powerful as a 3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo (Core 2 architecture is about 1.8x faster than Netburst, take into account there are 2 cores in a Core 2 Duo and the advantage of dual core processing from a task management point of view, then it's going to be better than 1.8x, probably 2.5. In which case a P4 would be less than a quarter as powerful as a Core 2 Duo of the same clock speed, and a Core 2 Quad would be 8 times as powerful if not even more!). Even Capcom has said that the Xenon isn't much more powerful than a Pentium D Dual Core. It's got a bit more headroom thanks to it's 6 thread capability (2 per core in the tri-core Xenon), but that's not much of anything in my book. The 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo in my laptop destroys any Pentium D with complete and utter prejudice.

Crysis is nothing compared to Flight Simulator X with max settings on. That thing really taxes everything in your computer.

1. Crysis

2. Supreme Commander

3. Everquest 2 - Terribly optimized, can't even max it out on an E6600 and 8800GTS.

Staryoshi87