Assasin's Creed *Minimum* Requirments

F

frankhuzzah

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
96
According to Ubisoft the following are the *minimum* system requirements for Assassin's Creed

In order to play this game properly, your PC MUST meet or exceed these minimum requirements:

Supported OS: Windows XP / 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: 2 GB (3 GB recommended)

Video Card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (512 MB video card recommended) (see supported list)*

Sound Card: DirectX 9.0 or 10.0 compliant sound card (5.1 sound card recommended)

DirectX Version: DirectX 10.0 libraries (included on disc)

DVD-ROM: DVD-ROM dual-layer drive

Hard Drive Space: 12 GB

Peripherals Supported: Keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360 Controller for Windows recommended)

*Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
ATI RADEON X1300-1950 / HD 2000 / 3000 series
NVIDIA GeForce 6600-6800 / 7 / 8 / 9 series

Laptop versions of these cards may work but are NOT supported. These chipsets are the only ones that will run this game.

NOTICE: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some disc and virtual drives.
Click to expand...

I can honestly say I'm shocked. While this game should look nice, the fact that Crysis has more relaxed requirements is crazy.
 
Seems like Ubisoft had some share-time with Nvidia's 9-series GPU :p

Glad I meet those requirements, extreme as they are, I bet it plays better than Crysis
 
OW! Maybe they decided to skip optimizing it, so they could get it out the door faster? I guess we'll find out in March, but right now it doesn't look like I'm going to get this one.
 
12 gigabytes. That's just retarded.. Good thing I already played the whole game through on my cousin's PS3 so I don't have to bother buying it for the PC just yet.
 
RangerSVT said:
Glad I meet those requirements, extreme as they are, I bet it plays better than Crysis
Click to expand...

Really, really doubt it... Ubisoft does the worst, sloppiest ports to the PC and doesn't optimize their game for the PC at all. That's probably the reason for these high requirements, Ubisoft is just shitting out another stinker without taking the time to optimize it for anything.

Vegas was so bad on the PC... they couldn't even do widescreen right!!! Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, while not a port, was buggy as hell, GRAW was a shitty mess on the PC, Blazing Angels 2 was horrible and full of bugs, and those are just off the top of my head!

They make some decent console games, but they just blow when it comes to PC stuff. Assassin's Creed was already buggy on the consoles, it's just going to be crap on the PC... I just avoid Ubisoft like the plague now when it comes to PC games. I'm surprised at the amount of people looking forward to AC when Ubisoft's track record is so horrible.
 
thats a tad steep.

I thought only EA could screw up an engine port that bad.

*sigh*, and it seems the days of the X800s are over. 6800 owners rejoice! the only reason to have bought a 6800 has finally come to pass! (... I kid i kid I'm just being provocative.)

Roufuss said:
Vegas was so bad on the PC... they couldn't even do widescreen right!!! Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, while not a port, was buggy as hell, GRAW was a shitty mess on the PC, Blazing Angels 2 was horrible and full of bugs, and those are just off the top of my head!
Click to expand...

you my friend need to play 007: Nightfire for the PC. A port by ea. Its just like Nightfire for the console except it sucks! Its like they sucked out all the fun and substituted a big heepin steepin pile of fail.
 
That is absolute insanity. I hope there is a minimum framerate expectancy with those minimum system requirements?
 
Killa_2327 said:
We don't mention that game anymore!!!
Click to expand...

I know it is bad but I love that game to death. I play it more than just about anything on my system. Performance was abysmal, but not on my system:D

I thought Assasin's Creed had a Feb 12th release date? Now march what is this?

Also I totally loved my x800xl. It was a really fast card, but I had to trade it in when Splinter Cell Chaos Theory came out.
 
Not really sure what some of you were expecting? This game looks awesome, it's going to need some high specs.

Its about time dual core CPU's started becoming min spec, it shows developers are starting to take advantage of the technology.
 
I was hoping for a little less stringent reqs. I'll wait till someone else tries it on my notebook before buying it. 12gigs is a little excessive as well.
 
You guys are forgetting this isn't really a port. PC development started out alongside the console development but it was delayed because they wouldn't be able to do a good job with it and have it ready for release on time.

That being said, the requirements seem high but I can meet them so no biggy.
 
Frosteh said:
Not really sure what some of you were expecting? This game looks awesome, it's going to need some high specs.

Its about time dual core CPU's started becoming min spec, it shows developers are starting to take advantage of the technology.
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
frankhuzzah said:
According to Ubisoft the following are the *minimum* system requirements for Assassin's Creed



I can honestly say I'm shocked. While this game should look nice, the fact that Crysis has more relaxed requirements is crazy.
Click to expand...

Crysis requirements were bullshit, thats why.
 
Ouch.. thoose are insane high.. geez i doubt this game has any super duper textures higher then crysis, or even levels bigger then huge islands ? come on.. the 360 has only 512mb memory and for pc its recommended 3gb ? Are they insane..:confused:

And they wonder why pc-games are going downhill.. it feels more like insane system requirements and lousy protections like starforce hurts more then "piracy" does.
 
I really want the question to be answered, are PCs stronger than consoles? consoles may have lower specs then PCs, but the focus is completely on gaming. Everything in the system is designed for gaming from the CPU/GPU/OS.

I think we've stood at the low requirements of a 256MB GPU, 500MB RAM, 2.4ghz (P4) for way too long. It's time to step it up, or switch over to consoles.

The only comparison I can make to this, is HDTV owners who have been in the HD market for years. For a long time we only had like 8-14 HD channels and its time to step it up and make HD a requirement.
 
I like how everyone is shocked at the ram requirements... let me ask this question, at what point in time WILL it be acceptable to require 3-4gigs of ram for a game? Don't some games eventually push the envelope in terms of requirements and gamers keep buying new gear and upgrading. Not trying to defend this game and the fact that it's unoptimized or a shitty port.. but eventually there must be a point where 3gb is acceptable if you want a great game experience..
 
I loved it and with pc's and modding I can now recreate the opening seen of casino royale.
 
Roufuss said:
Really, really doubt it... Ubisoft does the worst, sloppiest ports to the PC and doesn't optimize their game for the PC at all. That's probably the reason for these high requirements, Ubisoft is just shitting out another stinker without taking the time to optimize it for anything.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever had a problem with Ubisoft Montreal's studio. I had a blast with the Prince Of Persia series - I played through all three on the PC without any problems, and I played through the first one on the xbox and PS2, and the second one on the gamecube -- no issues at all.

I know Montreal Studio did Assassin's Creed for PS3... I'm not sure if they're doing the port or not, but if they do it should be of decent quality.

With that said, I still think game companies get sloppier as better, faster hardware comes out. It's like they use the faster hardware to make up for slowness issues with their code.
 
The catch with that RAM requirement is that it's the absolute cap for a 32-bit Windows OS. They literally couldn't have a higher requirement without insisting that users go to a 64-bit OS...which typically aren't sold in stores and often aren't offered via builders.
That's pretty nuts.
There has to be some laziness somewhere considering the console ports. They have an insane view distance, good framerate, and vsync on. Whatever they've done with the console hardware they should be able to at least partially execute on the PC with specs that are less than that.
Considering the 360 version, it's just easier to get that one. Actually considering the hardware requirements, it might be cheaper to get a 360 arcade than to upgrade for most people.
 
Techx said:
I like how everyone is shocked at the ram requirements... let me ask this question, at what point in time WILL it be acceptable to require 3-4gigs of ram for a game?
Click to expand...

I don't find it acceptable that a console port needs 3 gigs to run comfortably, unless they've done something impressive with the PC version to justify it, which I doubt. The console versions probably use less than 256MB RAM.
 
You can build the game to use a variable amount of RAM, the more RAM you use the less times you need to pause to load. There's 12Gb of game data as this is what they claim you need to install it, so 3-4 Gb seems perfectly reasonable to me. Consoles suffer from terrible frame rates at times, it makes me wonder if they do a lot of streaming data in/out of what little RAM they have.

Could you imagine free running around the city and then pausing while it loads the next "section" and then carrying on again?

RAM is a cheap as chips right now, upgrading from say 2gb to 4gb isn't going to bust the bank.
 
this game has one of the smoooothest character animations I've seen in a game for the main character. It has LARGE crowds, massive city and a big draw distance. It doesn't seem like the scaled it back in anyway either. I can see those requirements.
 
theNoid said:
Its not that good of a game. :mad:
Click to expand...

Umm..I have it for XBOX and it's a great game. Lots of fun. And it's nice to see that devs are actually hopping onto the RAM bandwagon. RAM is cheap so everyoone should have alot off it.
 
Its decent, but I hate the fact taht when you replay it you have to play sections at a time. You can't just replay a kill. Not to mention, if you do everything the first time (i mean all like 6 ways of getting info) theres not much else you can do when you replay.

Tips for the newbs: They tell you to go out of crowds to beat people up for news, you don't have to. Guards won't interfere, just make sure you leave when you're done.
 
3gb of ram? might as well get 4gb, but then you'll need vista 64bit to utilize it. This is getting ridiculous. a 3 year old console runs the same game, and probably better. The PC version better be bug-free and better looking than the 360 version to justify these requirements AND the wait time.

oh and it also better have jade raymond making a nude cameo
 
Revenicus said:
This is getting ridiculous. a 3 year old console runs the same game, and probably better.

oh and it also better have jade raymond making a nude cameo
Click to expand...

HAHAHA, get your head on straight, since when have console games run better than a half decent PC, at least with the PC if the frame rate stutters you can drop the visual quality to get smooth gameplay. When they balls up the frame rate in console games you're stuck with it :mad:

+1 for the nude cameo though ;)
 
it's frosteh!

Frosteh said:
HAHAHA, get your head on straight
Click to expand...

HAHAHA ok.

Frosteh said:
, since when have console games run better than a half decent PC, at least with the PC if the frame rate stutters you can drop the visual quality to get smooth gameplay. When they balls up the frame rate in console games you're stuck with it :mad:

+1 for the nude cameo though ;)
Click to expand...

Well, 'since when' have we had PC requirements so high on game that runs well on a console? damnit frosteh, lets just wait and see, but i assure you, I'll be posting here if its a buggy piece of shite. and you feel free to rub it in my face if it blows the 360 version out of the water.
 
Frosteh said:
HAHAHA, get your head on straight, since when have console games run better than a half decent PC, at least with the PC if the frame rate stutters you can drop the visual quality to get smooth gameplay. When they balls up the frame rate in console games you're stuck with it :mad:
Click to expand...

Rainbow Six Vegas.

Probably Rainbow Six Vegas 2.
 
Supported OS is XP or Vista. OK, but why does it say you must have DX10 libraries? Am I missing something there?
/xp user
 
Perhaps they are doing away with the recommended and required system requirements (to an extent) and just saying 'to have a satisfying gaming experience, you should have these things. If you have less, it could work, but we won't support it.'

My bigger problem is that all these developers are complaining about PC gaming dying, then throwing out system requirements like this. People want to game on their PCs, World of Warcraft is case and point to that. It is successful because just about any PC made in the last 5 years can play it with a satisfactory gaming experience. They say there are 10 million people worldwide paying $15 every month to play that game. There is money to be made. (On a side note, I believe the 10 million number is inflated, but even at half that number it still proves my point).

I'm not saying I want every game to look like WoW. I haven't spent the money on a gaming caliber PC for that. What I'm saying is that this game is being set up to fail simply because most people will pick up the box at Best Buy and put it right back down.

And for all those talking about cheap ram prices, just because we know where to look for good, cheap ram, doesn't mean your average Joe consumer does. At Best Buy's website they are charging an average $200 for 2 gigs of DDR2. Add in the $300 for an 8800GT, then of course there is installation (admit it, not everyone revels in an excuse to open up their case), and that is one expensive upgrade for one game. Makes that 360 or PS3 version seem like a bargain. At least there they'd know that they'll be able to play all the games for that system for the next few years.
 
I just about spit my Mountain Dew when I saw those reqs. AC graphics aren't nearly that intensive.
 
Assassins Creed better have some sort of vortex system coming out of the monitor and sucking you into the game itself with those requirements.

I can't get my head around the fact that the 360 with 512mb of RAM onboard can play the game just fine and our PCs need 3gigs. Why? Maybe there will be some sort of minigame you could play with Jade while you are running around the city. One can only hope...
 
Endurancevm said:
Assassins Creed better have some sort of vortex system coming out of the monitor and sucking you into the game itself with those requirements.

I can't get my head around the fact that the 360 with 512mb of RAM onboard can play the game just fine and our PCs need 3gigs. Why? Maybe there will be some sort of minigame you could play with Jade while you are running around the city. One can only hope...
Click to expand...

Only thing I can think of right now would be the same situation with Gears of War, the Xbox version looked OK, but the PC version looked hella sweet, but at times very glitchy, they can feed PC users with higher resolution higher texture sizes, for better visuals, I suppose?
 
RangerSVT said:
Only thing I can think of right now would be the same situation with Gears of War, the Xbox version looked OK, but the PC version looked hella sweet, but at times very glitchy, they can feed PC users with higher resolution higher texture sizes, for better visuals, I suppose?
Click to expand...

Even assuming Ubisoft takes the time to do that, a 3gigs of RAM as recommended is like 6x more RAM than the Xbox 360 has. The texture resolution had better be the best texturing job to date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top