the force unleash 2 walks the line.. system requirements!!

recommendeds sit on borderline poor optimization.. hd 4800 series or gtx 200 series :o i stand unimpresse but hesitant..

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/66075

minimum

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 5200+2 gb ram256 MB Video Memory with Shader 3.0 support - ATI Radeon HD 2600 / NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTHard disk space: 10GB + 1GB SwapfileOperating system: Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista SP2, or Windows 7Sound: 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible Audio DeviceDirectX: DirectX 9.0c (March 2009)

recommendedProcessor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 6000+Video: 256 MB Video Memory with Shader 3.0 support - ATI Radeon HD 4800 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260

How is a rec of 4800 bad? It's 2010. If you don't have a card that matches them then you need to upgrade.

those are extremely reasonable although the gap between minimum and recommended is really small. Maybe it will follow in its predecessors shoes and skip out on graphics options.

glad to see a Core 2 Duo as recommended, makes me feel better about hanging on to mine.

Seeing 2010 system reqs make me want a new GPU =\

But system reqs are not always entirely correct, we have to wait and see :P

Seeing 2010 system reqs make me want a new GPU =\

But system reqs are not always entirely correct, we have to wait and see :P

coreybg

You should be able to play it just fine. Obviously not on max, but it'll still look good and play well.

[QUOTE="coreybg"]

Seeing 2010 system reqs make me want a new GPU =\

But system reqs are not always entirely correct, we have to wait and see :P

Phoenix534

You should be able to play it just fine. Obviously not on max, but it'll still look good and play well.

also as a heads up man i more than exceed these requirements (hd 5830, core 2 quad q8400)

but still its a console port i dont see a reason for the hd 4800 or gtx 200

This shouldn't surprise anyone, because:

-The ported version of the original Force Unleashed was probably the worst port job ever. I think the system requirements/recommendations for the first game were at least as high as those just released for TFU2. Although, in fairness.. The game ran at roughly the same speed on the 3.8ghz E8400/5870 rig that I had at the time, as it did on my brother's Athlon II X2 240/9600gt rig. The optimization was non-existent. Anybody else remember the install size being something like 20-30gb?

-The first one came with no graphics options to speak of. None. Just a resolution setting in the game launcher.

-Even on a high-end system the first one ran like crap at times, and was capped at 30fps.

The game itself was nothing more than a button-masher like God of War, but in the Star Wars extended universe. The first game was nothing special, and the sequel will likely use the same lackluster formula. Can we PLEEEEEEEAAAASE have a new Dark Forces/Jedi Knight game?

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

[QUOTE="coreybg"]

Seeing 2010 system reqs make me want a new GPU =\

But system reqs are not always entirely correct, we have to wait and see :P

ionusX

You should be able to play it just fine. Obviously not on max, but it'll still look good and play well.

also as a heads up man i more than exceed these requirements (hd 5830, core 2 quad q8400)

but still its a console port i dont see a reason for the hd 4800 or gtx 200

Apparently i pass for minimum requirments:?

http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/CYRI/analysis.aspx

with a

4870 2.2 GB

Disk space of 738.2 GB

2.66GHz Intel Core Duo

4.0 GB of RAM

and 4.0 shader support

Apparently i pass for minimum requirments:?

http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/CYRI/analysis.aspx

with a

4870 2.2 GB

Disk space of 738.2 GB

2.66GHz Intel Core Duo

4.0 GB of RAM

and 4.0 shader support

strangeisland

Hope my 8800GTX, Q6600 and 8GB RAM can handle it....FelipeInside

If it's anything like the first (ported) TFU game, it will run just as badly on your system as anybody else's. Meaning that the first game didn't seem to run much better on high-end stuff than the minimum stated requirements. I tested it on multiple PCs with different configurations. Just a horribly optimized port of a mediocre game to start with.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]Hope my 8800GTX, Q6600 and 8GB RAM can handle it....hartsickdiscipl

If it's anything like the first (ported) TFU game, it will run just as badly on your system as anybody else's. Meaning that the first game didn't seem to run much better on high-end stuff than the minimum stated requirements. I tested it on multiple PCs with different configurations. Just a horribly optimized port of a mediocre game to start with.

Seeing 2010 system reqs make me want a new GPU =\

But system reqs are not always entirely correct, we have to wait and see :P

coreybg

Eh... The minimum for Just Cause 2 is a 8800gt, and I can run it very well on medium/high. Hopefuly it will be something like that...

Man am I glad to see that it's hard drive requirements aren't nearly as ludicrous as the first game. Seriously at 23.8 gigs for the first one it was a bloody waste.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]Hope my 8800GTX, Q6600 and 8GB RAM can handle it....hartsickdiscipl

If it's anything like the first (ported) TFU game, it will run just as badly on your system as anybody else's. Meaning that the first game didn't seem to run much better on high-end stuff than the minimum stated requirements. I tested it on multiple PCs with different configurations. Just a horribly optimized port of a mediocre game to start with.

Btw I would recommend TFU to any SW fan. Its story is better than any of the prequals and its a good game to boot. The only gameplay complaint was the targetting system was a bit wonky

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]Hope my 8800GTX, Q6600 and 8GB RAM can handle it....bonafidetk

If it's anything like the first (ported) TFU game, it will run just as badly on your system as anybody else's. Meaning that the first game didn't seem to run much better on high-end stuff than the minimum stated requirements. I tested it on multiple PCs with different configurations. Just a horribly optimized port of a mediocre game to start with.

Btw I would recommend TFU to any SW fan. Its story is better than any of the prequals and its a good game to boot. The only gameplay complaint was the targetting system was a bit wonky

Yes, I played TFU with all of the patches. It made the game playable, but certainly not nearly as well-optimized as most PC releases. It was still a joke. I have very little positive to say about the story, and much less good to say about the execution. The game has a heavy case of console-itis. Button-mashing, shallow gameplay. It made me want to go back and replay Jedi Outcast and Academy to remember what a good Star Wars game was like. So I did.

[QUOTE="bonafidetk"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If it's anything like the first (ported) TFU game, it will run just as badly on your system as anybody else's. Meaning that the first game didn't seem to run much better on high-end stuff than the minimum stated requirements. I tested it on multiple PCs with different configurations. Just a horribly optimized port of a mediocre game to start with.

hartsickdiscipl

Btw I would recommend TFU to any SW fan. Its story is better than any of the prequals and its a good game to boot. The only gameplay complaint was the targetting system was a bit wonky

Yes, I played TFU with all of the patches. It made the game playable, but certainly not nearly as well-optimized as most PC releases. It was still a joke. I have very little positive to say about the story, and much less good to say about the execution. The game has a heavy case of console-itis. Button-mashing, shallow gameplay. It made me want to go back and replay Jedi Outcast and Academy to remember what a good Star Wars game was like. So I did.

I hope this time it doesn't take 26 GB to installguildclaws

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]Hope my 8800GTX, Q6600 and 8GB RAM can handle it....bonafidetk

If it's anything like the first (ported) TFU game, it will run just as badly on your system as anybody else's. Meaning that the first game didn't seem to run much better on high-end stuff than the minimum stated requirements. I tested it on multiple PCs with different configurations. Just a horribly optimized port of a mediocre game to start with.

Btw I would recommend TFU to any SW fan. Its story is better than any of the prequals and its a good game to boot. The only gameplay complaint was the targetting system was a bit wonky

Patches or no, it's still a terrible port. The patches simply made the game actually playable for a number of people that were having issues with it. 30 FPS cap, no graphical options, I still have issues with the sound cutting out. It's a mess, and it's hard to imagine that it was actually worse when it was first ported.

The first game ran smoothly for me so hopefully this one runs smoothly too.

And hopefully there are more video settings.

[QUOTE="bonafidetk"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If it's anything like the first (ported) TFU game, it will run just as badly on your system as anybody else's. Meaning that the first game didn't seem to run much better on high-end stuff than the minimum stated requirements. I tested it on multiple PCs with different configurations. Just a horribly optimized port of a mediocre game to start with.

hartsickdiscipl

Btw I would recommend TFU to any SW fan. Its story is better than any of the prequals and its a good game to boot. The only gameplay complaint was the targetting system was a bit wonky

Yes, I played TFU with all of the patches. It made the game playable, but certainly not nearly as well-optimized as most PC releases. It was still a joke. I have very little positive to say about the story, and much less good to say about the execution. The game has a heavy case of console-itis. Button-mashing, shallow gameplay. It made me want to go back and replay Jedi Outcast and Academy to remember what a good Star Wars game was like. So I did.

[QUOTE="guildclaws"]I hope this time it doesn't take 26 GB to installFelipeInside

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="bonafidetk"] have you bothered to play TFU with all the patches recently? I bought it in the steam sale and it ran smooth as butter. Yea I kinda have a decent rig, but I had no problem with it. The only thing I disliked was the non-removable 30 FPS cap.

Btw I would recommend TFU to any SW fan. Its story is better than any of the prequals and its a good game to boot. The only gameplay complaint was the targetting system was a bit wonky

bonafidetk

Yes, I played TFU with all of the patches. It made the game playable, but certainly not nearly as well-optimized as most PC releases. It was still a joke. I have very little positive to say about the story, and much less good to say about the execution. The game has a heavy case of console-itis. Button-mashing, shallow gameplay. It made me want to go back and replay Jedi Outcast and Academy to remember what a good Star Wars game was like. So I did.

I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and I did finish the game. And yes, it is still a bunch of button-mashing.. just harder button-mashing on the higher difficulty levels. It's an arcade-like game, lacking depth and substance. It's literally God of War in the Star Wars universe. It plays almost exactly like it. It's a console game, and not a very good one at that. The reviews bear that out. Jedi Outcast and Academy on the other hand, have real Star Wars ambience, a well-paced story, and excellent gameplay more reminiscent of the movies.

Im willing to bet it will run like crap like the first, and will be just as boring.

Seeing 2010 system reqs make me want a new GPU =\

But system reqs are not always entirely correct, we have to wait and see :P

coreybg

System requirments seem fair to me its a good looking game. Ill be getting on the PS3 tho when the move patch comes out.

If the game is a direct port without any extra settings it should only require something around a 7800gt at console resolutions.

If it has higher video settings I might understand the need for higher requirements.

If the game is a direct port without any extra settings it should only require something around a 7800gt at console resolutions.

If it has higher video settings I might understand the need for higher requirements.

Hakkai007

Well the reqs seem fair to be honest, but a demo wouldn't hurt really.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

If the game is a direct port without any extra settings it should only require something around a 7800gt at console resolutions.

If it has higher video settings I might understand the need for higher requirements.

FelipeInside

The GPU in a PS3 is based on the same GPU that the 7800/7900gt were. I'm thinking that's why the other poster referenced that particular GPU. I'm personally in agreement with him. 7800gt/7900gt, or the roughly equivalent 8600gt.

Well the reqs seem fair to be honest, but a demo wouldn't hurt really.

dinuattila

There are a ton of games coming now nowadays without demos. It's very disturbing to me, and is actually keeping me from buying many games. The new Medal of Honor game is another one that comes to mind.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

If the game is a direct port without any extra settings it should only require something around a 7800gt at console resolutions.

If it has higher video settings I might understand the need for higher requirements.

FelipeInside

The graphics for that game were meh.

A 7800gt should be able to handle it at the resolution the PS3 was playing at.

The PS3 uses a GPU that is like a 7800gt with gimped settings.

[QUOTE="dinuattila"]

Well the reqs seem fair to be honest, but a demo wouldn't hurt really.

hartsickdiscipl

There are a ton of games coming now nowadays without demos. It's very disturbing to me, and is actually keeping me from buying many games. The new Medal of Honor game is another one that comes to mind.

Yes, but MoH had "at least" the beta. And to be honest TFU2 could have used a demo, simply because lots of PC players will judge the title harsh just because the original title turned out to be a bad port to say the least.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

If the game is a direct port without any extra settings it should only require something around a 7800gt at console resolutions.

If it has higher video settings I might understand the need for higher requirements.

Hakkai007

The graphics for that game were meh.

A 7800gt should be able to handle it at the resolution the PS3 was playing at.

The PS3 uses a GPU that is like a 7800gt with gimped settings.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] Even if it's something like Metal Gear Solid 4....from the PS3? That game has freaking awesome graphics so I don't think a 7800gt could handle it personally...FelipeInside

The graphics for that game were meh.

A 7800gt should be able to handle it at the resolution the PS3 was playing at.

The PS3 uses a GPU that is like a 7800gt with gimped settings.

The PC wouldn't HAVE to play the game at a much higher resolution. Most PC gamers do play well above 720p, but we don't have to. It just looks better, especially since we're sitting so close to the screen in comparison to console gamers who can sit back 6+ feet from their TV. When I play console games and I get up really close the screen, the games look pretty awful. The textures are muddy, there are jagged lines all over the place.. all sorts of things.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

The graphics for that game were meh.

A 7800gt should be able to handle it at the resolution the PS3 was playing at.

The PS3 uses a GPU that is like a 7800gt with gimped settings.

hartsickdiscipl

The PC wouldn't HAVE to play the game at a much higher resolution. Most PC gamers do play well above 720p, but we don't have to. It just looks better, especially since we're sitting so close to the screen in comparison to console gamers who can sit back 6+ feet from their TV. When I play console games and I get up really close the screen, the games look pretty awful. The textures are muddy, there are jagged lines all over the place.. all sorts of things.