48 réponses à ce sujet

[NagarAsh]

hi all

i just had these perticular questions regarding high graphics and such being shown in the gameplay trailers...

1stly, is th game gonna have as high default/minimum graphics as in case of ubisoft games ?

i mean...i really dislike assassins creed (and any other ubisoft games) and i dont mean the game sucks...the games brilliant...but even the minimum graphics set for the games are soo high that its like the company is making the games only for those fans who can afford such high end graphics video cards and systems...

2ndly, if the graphics is gonna be so high even at the minimum settings will there be a textures patch that could help fans who cant afford those high end systems (like me) ?

my system detaiils are:
- acer aspire v7 ultrabook
- Windows 8 (x64-bit)
- intel hd graphics 4000
- intel core i5-3337u, 4 cpus @ 1.80 GHz
- 12.0 GB RAM
- directx version 11.1
- shader version 5.0
- opengl version 4.0

PLEASE DO LEMME KNOW 

THX
ASH

[Br3admax]

You should be fine, in AC or DA, though it does seem kind of weak. You do know that the graphics were scaled back because of current gen console limitations right? Of course next gen is going to be way better.

Modifié par Br3ad, 07 octobre 2013 - 05:33 .

[NagarAsh]

k on that note i have ac 3 and it runs slow and i cant get the textures in the tunnels working for ever and ever...so i uninstalled it and well lets jus say its awaiting its moment of death...

and for the 2nd sentence...which games graphics do u mean where scaled down... and in that case what category does my ultrabook, with its specifications, fall into (current gen and next gen stuff)

Modifié par NagarAsh, 07 octobre 2013 - 04:38 .

[Br3admax]

It has to do with your laptop model, most likely. Acer's aren't the most powerful of laptops, that one especially. It's below average, but it should still be able to run it.

As to the second question, most of the games that came out this and last year, really.

[AlanC9]

I don't know if an HD 4000 will cut it, actually. Depends on how optimized the PC version is for low-end rigs.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Hate to break it for you, but I highly doubt an HD 4000 will suffice. You'll need a dedicated card along the lines of a GeForce GT 630M and above to get average-to-good performance with a little tweaking. The processor is also rather lacking at only 1.80 GHz.

Not saying you won't be able to run the game, but the machine will most likely struggle to keep a decent framerate throughout under the current specs (GPU and CPU, specifically).

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 07 octobre 2013 - 05:16 .

[Br3admax]

Wait...wut? That's like picking up a 3DS and saying, "So consoles really are inferior.....muhahahaha"

As to the OP, yeah, don't know what I was reading the first time, but the second post is more close to the true answer. That model sacrifices efficiency for light weight and battery power.

[JCAP]

intel hd graphics 4000

Do you want good news of bad news?

Good: This graphics card is really good to see movies, it don't require too much energy. It's really a good friend of the nature.

Bad: Sucks to play games.


PS: My laptop has 2 graphic cards, Intel HD 4000 and Nvidia geforce 650m. Personal experience.


PSS: You shouldn't have bought a ultrabook if you play games. It's one of the worst mistakes a gamer can make.

Modifié par JCAP, 07 octobre 2013 - 05:54 .

[JCAP]

NagarAsh wrote...

i mean...i really dislike assassins creed (and any other ubisoft games) and i dont mean the game sucks...the games brilliant...but even the minimum graphics set for the games are soo high that its like the company is making the games only for those fans who can afford such high end graphics video cards and systems...

I know that feeling bro.

Before I got my hands on my new laptop, I did have that opinion of Ubisoft. "Why do they make their requirements so high? Why can't they make games like Mass Effect? It has good graphics and even my pc can handle it"

Sadly, it isn't so simple like that... Different tecnologys, different requirements.

But believe me, try to hold that hate, their games are amazing and their stories are usually deep.

I, for example, I am really addicted to AC, I am even replaying AC 1 and 2. Watch dogs will be my cup of tea while GTA V don't come out for pc.

[aries1001]

I had a intel 4000 graphics card, and I tried to play Stalker. Sadly, , I couldn't. It was shown to me that this card only had 64MB dedicated to it. (Icewind Dale II(2), ran fine, though....)

The point is this, yes, the integrated 4000 graphics card is an OK and good card, but for Stalker,
I needed at least, I think a 128 MB or 256 MB card. And for newer games like Skyrim, you'll need at least a stand alone video card with 512 MB, often you'll need a video card with 1 GB of video ram memory.

Also, as others have said, notebooks and ultrabooks are probably not the best thing to play games like Dragon Age: Inquisition on...

[JCAP]

Trista Hawke wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Wait...wut? That's like picking up a 3DS and saying, "So consoles really are inferior.....muhahahaha"

 

No. It's like telling the man who claims to be god that he's mortal after all.

Then direct that comment to the guys with 100000000 million dollars worth computers. Not all pc gamers use overpowered pc's just to have 300 fps with anti aliasing and everything.

[PurpleWhisper]

I'd say that you have time to save up for a more gamer-friendly Laptop or PC. We have around a year to wait for DA:I (assuming no delays or set-backs). If you search right, you can find an affordable machine that runs games well. I have a desktop, but I take my Toshiba laptop when visiting mates for gaming weekends and it plays all current games effortlessly. It was around £600.00. Shop around.

Failing that, it looks like DA:I is going to be better adapted to the console this time. You will be able to zoom out and everything!

[movieguyabw]

Reading this has me very nervous. I was thinking of getting DAI on PC, this time around. DAO runs great on my system, but I'm pretty sure my set up wouldn't even be able to match up to the OP's. (not an expert on computers though)

have an ATI Radeon HD 5500
2.5 GB RAM
on a (heavily modified) Dell Optiplex

[NagarAsh]

hi all

thx for the replies...

im into gaming but at the end of the day i had to go with intel chip especially coz it holds for longer period of time before dying on its user and i need it for the 3Ds Max rendering and stuff in animation...now if im not wrong...which im most definitely not...if im not wrong the amd/nvedia will work excellent but for a year or so before it starts saying goodbye...

plus im not the kinda person who would change my laptop/mobile in a year or 2...i mean i still use sony ericsson xperia x10i which is among the very 1st sony ericsson android phones...which was quite a lot of year back...

actually the games like the sims3, dao, da2, mass effect (1,2&3), tomb raider 2013 (which i play at high settings except the tessellations which is mid) work excellent but AC, blacklist...etc work considerably well if not gr8 coz of the high default graphics at low/normal settings...all work but the trouble is that AC3, for example, works gr8 but gets slow for a moment in mid way and then gets back to normal...but in the boston tunnels i cant get the symbol textures to work ever...similarly....blacklist works both with dx9 and dx11...only it works slow and choppy (not like slowmotion type slow) when playing it with dx11 but works considerable with dx9...

i actually meant by asking the question that - since latest great games (example: AC3 and blacklist) are at such high graphics levels even at the low/mid settings i suspect bioware might try and step up to them and forget about its 'every fan' and concentrate only on the high-end gaming fans like in ubosoft's case (i think so because of the graphics case which requires a gamer to buy a high-end system to play at recommended/high settings)...which will be a greatly sad day for me as i love mass effect and dragon age way more then any other pc game out there...especially Dragon Age Origins...this question is whats been eating me even before dai is anywhere near release dateso instead on crying out loud for not being able to play dai after its released i just wanted to confirm my suspecion...

hehe...ended up writing long...sorry...

THX all
ash

cheers

[NagarAsh]

bump...

[Pink Pony]

A few points:

1. I would guess that your current computer will be able to play Dragon Age: Inquisition as it is being released for the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. However, the specifications for the game have not been released yet, so nobody can answer definitively

2. Intel graphics cards do not last longer than ATI or Nvidia. The main reason people have those graphics cards fail on them is they were overclocking their computer or doing something else improperly.

3. If you get a decent computer it will last many more than two years, you should be able to expect at least four years of running most games well.

4. Upcoming games are now being developed for the Xbox One and Playstation 4, so specifications for games will generally be increasing.

5. Both the upcoming Dragon Age and Mass Effect games will run on the Frostbite 3 engine. The only two games that use it which you can play right now are in beta: Battlefield 4 and the free-to-play Command & Conquer. However, from what I have read, if you can play Battlefield 3, you should be fine.

6. I recommend getting a decent desktop: something around $600-$800. It will run games much better than your laptop.

Modifié par Pink Pony, 14 octobre 2013 - 06:10 .

[Navasha]

Laptops pretty much sacrifice performance for portability, at least on a dollar for dollar basis. My advice is to build yourself a desktop machine. Buy a nice oversized case, and don't skimp on the PSU initially. I have been using the same case and PSU unit now for 9 years. You can just simply upgrade piecemeal then as you find yourself getting bogged down. You can then maintain a near-top-of-line PC for a couple hundred dollars every 2 or 3 years.

[Fredvdp]

I expect the system requirements to be lower than Battlefield 4 (or BF3 even), but from what I've read, BF4, and possibly the Frostbite 3 engine, doesn't agree with Intel HD graphics. Few games do.

[BrotherDragon2]

An excellent article has just been posted on Tom's Hardware testing Battlefield 4 using the same Frostbite 3 engine that DA:I uses on various GPUs and CPUs. A must read!

http://www.tomshardw...mance,3634.html

______________________________
"I'm trying to think but nothin' happens-Jerome "Curly" Howard

[PnXMarcin1PL]

Great. So 'next-gen' games will be unplayable for me at their fullest details. After 3 years my GTX 460 became too weak
Back to topic. I think that DA:I system requirements are probably going to be:

Minimum:
OS: 64 bit only Win XP, Vista (SP2) , 7, 8, 8.1
CPU: Dual Core Intel 2,6GHz, Quadcore AMD 2,4GHz
RAM: 4GB
HDD: 40-70GB
GPU: 896MB GTX 275 or 1GB GTX 460 / AMD Radeon HD 4870 1GB + for both supported Intel HD 4xxx graphics

Recommended:
OS: 64 bit only, Windows 7, Windows 8 or 8.1
CPU: Intel Quad Core i5 3GHz or i7 3GHz (with 8 tasks), Six Core AMD 3,3GHz
RAM: 8-10GB
HDD: 40-70GB
GPU: 3GB and DX11 & 11.1 support GTX670 or HD7970 + for both supported Intel HD 4xxx graphics

Modifié par PnXMarcin1PL, 14 octobre 2013 - 09:20 .

[NagarAsh]

Pink Pony wrote...6. I recommend getting a decent desktop: something around $600-$800. It will run games much better than your laptop.

decent desktop in 600-800 CAD!!??...u mean a proper pc instead of laptop and that too soo low price..!!??
@Navasha - well see...thats the thing...in my case saying the fact about 'every 2-3 years' is like me banging my head hard on the wall till it bleads...i mean hell my dad bought his crapy laptop which has windows xp about 8 years back had he still uses nokia mobile which has no camera and stuff and is plainly for calling and texts...soo yeah im stck in that way..sadly 
@BrotherDragon2 - thx for the link. read through but understood almost nothing...also that sites not gonna even tough any intel hd graphics card...as they did in that article too...they only kept talking about amd and nvedia...

so if theres 1 other thing that i can see right now, sadly, is that - im apperantly stuck between old generation and rich society... 

[NagarAsh]

PnXMarcin1PL wrote...

Great. So 'next-gen' games will be unplayable for me at their fullest details. After 3 years my GTX 460 became too weak
Back to topic. I think that DA:I system requirements are probably going to be:

Minimum:
OS: 64 bit only Win XP, Vista (SP2) , 7, 8, 8.1
CPU: Dual Core Intel 2,6GHz, Quadcore AMD 2,4GHz
RAM: 4GB
HDD: 40-70GB
GPU: 896MB GTX 275 or 1GB GTX 460 / AMD Radeon HD 4870 1GB + for both supported Intel HD 4xxx graphics

Recommended:
OS: 64 bit only, Windows 7, Windows 8 or 8.1
CPU: Intel Quad Core i5 3GHz or i7 3GHz (with 8 tasks), Six Core AMD 3,3GHz
RAM: 8-10GB
HDD: 40-70GB
GPU: 3GB and DX11 & 11.1 support GTX670 or HD7970 + for both supported Intel HD 4xxx graphics

well i woulnt know a bit about the gtx 460 gpu but yeah if the rest of the min requirements that u assumed turn out to be true...that might be enough to run the game...i hope...coz thats what we can do now...sadly...