PDA

View Full Version : PSO2 Alpha System Requirements



Kaziel
Feb 24, 2011, 01:57 AM
These always fascinate me. Anyways, here's what SEGA is requiring for the PSO2 JP Alpha. Hopefully it'll put people's fears of having such crazy system reqs to rest.

http://i55.tinypic.com/o8fmgg.png
* Note that this is for Alpha testing, may be subject to change

NoiseHERO
Feb 24, 2011, 02:33 AM
My computer could probably run this on low settings then... ~_~

Still need a new pc...

Dongra
Feb 24, 2011, 02:33 AM
Very nice. Even though it's just an Alpha, I really don't expect the requirements for this game to become much higher once it's complete. Thank you for sharing this.

Corey Blue
Feb 24, 2011, 02:37 AM
These always fascinate me. Anyways, here's what SEGA is reccomending for the PSO2 JP Alpha. Hopefully it'll put people's fears of having such crazy system reqs to rest.

http://i55.tinypic.com/o8fmgg.png
* Note that this is for Alpha testing, may be subject to change
I knew it good,and I'm now even more curious on the art style there going to take.^^

Crystal_Shard
Feb 24, 2011, 02:44 AM
I'm far more keen to know what DRM they plan to infect our PCs with.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 24, 2011, 03:23 AM
GameGuard, obviously.
It's not DRM, but it sure is obnoxious.


Anyway, it'll probably end up being CD keys if anything. My wet dream would be Steamworks integration, but that is not going to happen.

W0LB0T
Feb 24, 2011, 03:48 AM
For a second there I thought it said 7.2 Gb of ram for vista.

LarienTiwele
Feb 24, 2011, 04:47 AM
Well, I'm not looking at them at the moment to say for sure, but aren't these specs lower then those nescessary for FFXIV? If so, I'm pretty much safe for, since my PC can run XIV at max settings with minimal lag etc (Barring me having open Bittorrent with 20+ Downloads etc...)

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 24, 2011, 05:33 AM
These specs are barely higher than PSU's.

LarienTiwele
Feb 24, 2011, 06:38 AM
Oh, damn.. Thats a let down then, lol. I was expecting something at least on AION's level of graphics or somesuch, lol.

RenzokukenZ
Feb 24, 2011, 06:57 AM
Its only the alpha, so its not gonna be candy and rainbows just yet.

Ishia
Feb 24, 2011, 08:31 AM
Even then, this is most disconcerting as I was expecting spec requirements suitable as of 2009/2010, not 2006/2007.

RenzokukenZ
Feb 24, 2011, 08:44 AM
Think of it this way.

Since the alpha won't require that much when it comes to your computer specs, this gives the idea that the finished product most likely will.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 24, 2011, 08:48 AM
Errr, no?

LarienTiwele
Feb 24, 2011, 08:50 AM
The alpha from previous experiences either uses the same, or higher specs then usually was required for the final product, which is then lowered to be what it is for final. [<- AION and FFXIV Alpha / beta tester]

RenzokukenZ
Feb 24, 2011, 08:53 AM
I see.

Well, prepare to be disappointed then.

Ishia
Feb 24, 2011, 08:54 AM
I already am.

ttdestroy
Feb 24, 2011, 09:21 AM
I hope they're not turning this into a casual game.

Ezodagrom
Feb 24, 2011, 09:25 AM
Oh, damn.. Thats a let down then, lol. I was expecting something at least on AION's level of graphics or somesuch, lol.
These requirements are slightly higher than Aion's requirements, for example, the recommended graphics card for Aion is a Geforce 7600GT or better.
And they're quite a bit higher than PSU (lol recommened cpu: Pentium 4 2.8GHz, recommended graphics card: any with ar least 128MB memory).

Kaziel
Feb 24, 2011, 10:18 AM
Oh, damn.. Thats a let down then, lol. I was expecting something at least on AION's level of graphics or somesuch, lol.

Maybe SEGA's engine is just more streamlined.

(Correct response): HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

NoiseHERO
Feb 24, 2011, 10:28 AM
If this game is gonna be PC only I think they're trying to screw over their non-pc gamer fans as least as possible by making it so that their computer can actually run the game...

Since when was everything about graphics and power. e_e

As long as the graphics are better than normal PSU I don't see a reason to complain...

Ezodagrom
Feb 24, 2011, 10:32 AM
Been checking the requirements for some other games, to compare with these, PSO2 requirements are a little bit higher than the minimum requirements for Mass Effect 2, it's not too bad. :P

BTW, are these the minimum or the recommended requirements? Here it mentions that these are the minimum. o:
http://bumped.org/psublog/phantasy-star-online-2-alpha-test-minimum-requirements/

Kaziel
Feb 24, 2011, 10:37 AM
BTW, are these the minimum or the recommended requirements? Here it mentions that these are the minimum. o:
http://bumped.org/psublog/phantasy-star-online-2-alpha-test-minimum-requirements/

I got my information straight from the Official SEGA website. Believe they said: "make sure your environment meets these requirements." It could be minimum. It could be recommended. I'm not sure which.

Zarode
Feb 24, 2011, 10:40 AM
Hopefully this game won't be an unoptimized piece of shit. PSU :nono:

Kaziel
Feb 24, 2011, 10:42 AM
Hopefully this game won't be an unoptimized piece of shit. PSU :nono:

For sure... that's why stopped me from playing PSU long-term. Not gonna lie. It didn't even seem like they put much effort into the engine.

Zarode
Feb 24, 2011, 11:06 AM
They couldn't. The game was basically half way finished, and SEGA of Japan decided that they spent too much money on the game, and forced Sonic Team to release what they had. It was a disaster.

Ezodagrom
Feb 24, 2011, 11:09 AM
They couldn't. The game was basically half way finished, and SEGA of Japan decided that they spent too much money on the game, and forced Sonic Team to release what they had. It was a disaster.
If PSU was halfway finished, I wonder what Sonic 06 was, less than 1/4th finished? :>
Ah 2006...the year of Sonic Team worst releases (so far)...

Kaziel
Feb 24, 2011, 11:21 AM
If PSU was halfway finished, I wonder what Sonic 06 was, less than 1/4th finished? :>
Ah 2006...the year of Sonic Team worst releases (so far)...

Dunno, but they're definitely picking themselves back up with the Phantasy Star Portable franchise.

Ezodagrom
Feb 24, 2011, 11:26 AM
Dunno, but they're definitely picking themselves back up with the Phantasy Star Portable franchise.
They're also getting better with the Sonic franchise as well, with Sonic Colours achieving a 7.8/10 in Metacritic, with this 7.8 score being the average of 58 reviews (41 of them were positive reviews, 16 were mixed, and 1 was bad, even though that bad review was pretty much a troll review). ^^

Zarode
Feb 24, 2011, 11:34 AM
I've got a good feeling, but damn, I refuse to hype myself for this. I was pretty crushed with PSU.

Kaziel
Feb 24, 2011, 12:05 PM
I've got a good feeling, but damn, I refuse to hype myself for this. I was pretty crushed with PSU.

Couldn't have said it better to be honest. QFT.

Nitro Vordex
Feb 24, 2011, 12:36 PM
Why does it need 2 GB of Ram and a dual core processor? It can't be all that bad if that's the minimum requirements. Keep in mind these requirements are just to get the game to run, not necessarily look pretty. There's usually a difference between required and recommended. If this is recommended, be prepared to be disappointed. If this is required, then there may be hope for how good it is.

2GB of ram required? >_>

Board
Feb 24, 2011, 12:48 PM
Well considering this is an alpha, it's pretty safe to assume that these are the minimum requirements. Alphas by definition aren't exactly polished when it comes to graphics (and sometimes gameplay and server business), which means that it shouldn't require that powerful a system.

Aerilas
Feb 24, 2011, 12:59 PM
I - unlike most of you - am very pleased with this news.

It might mean it could be a true sequel of PSO instead of another PSU knock-off

Dongra
Feb 24, 2011, 01:15 PM
It might mean it could be a true sequel of PSO instead of another PSU knock-off
Could you explain how you came up with this based on the system requirements?

Corey Blue
Feb 24, 2011, 01:17 PM
I - unlike most of you - am very pleased with this news.

It might mean it could be a true sequel of PSO instead of another PSU knock-off

Well PSU does that to people,will we get shit or will it be rainbows and lollipops,we cant really tell,and I'm hoping for that PSO type atmosphere,with no bland levels.(Oh and the music,gotta love the music.)So don't get hype for this game,it might get be disappointing.(Or SEGA could blow our minds and surprise us.)

Aerilas
Feb 24, 2011, 01:51 PM
Could you explain how you came up with this based on the system requirements?

I read the second page where Ishia said:

"Even then, this is most disconcerting as I was expecting spec requirements suitable as of 2009/2010, not 2006/2007."

LarienTiwele:

"The alpha from previous experiences either uses the same, or higher specs then usually was required for the final product, which is then lowered to be what it is for final. "

And it was basically a reply to that.

str898mustang
Feb 24, 2011, 02:01 PM
has anyone been able to sign up for the lottery? I click the link and it says error

NoiseHERO
Feb 24, 2011, 02:17 PM
@ random spontanious PSO vs PSU: Just gonna keep hoping this game won't be an abortion like PSU OR have PSO/PSZ's annoying combat... e_e

Arkios
Feb 24, 2011, 02:19 PM
Just for anyone that is curious, here are the system specs (Required and Recommended) for Dragon Age 2 for PC. DA2 comes out next month and got excellent reviews for it's previous game (Dragon Age:Origins). Note that the minimum specs are pretty close to what the specs are for the PSO2 Alpha. If those truly are the PSO2 MINIMUM requirements, then this looks very promising graphically.


PC Recommended:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz Processor or equivalent
CPU: AMD Phenom II X3 Triple core 2.8 GHz or equivalent
RAM: 2GB (4 GB Vista and Windows 7)
Video: ATI 3850 512 MB or greater
Video: NVIDIA 8800GTS 512 MB or greater
DirectX 11 Video: ATI 5850 or greater
DirectX 11 Video: NVIDIA 460 or greater

PC Minimum:
OS: Windows XP with SP3, Windows Vista with SP2, or Windows 7
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo (or equivalent) running at 1.8 GHz or greater
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 (or equivalent) running at 1.8 GHz or greater
RAM: 1 GB (1.5 GB Vista and Windows 7)
Video: ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256 MB
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 256 MB cards
Disc Drive: DVD ROM drive required
Hard Drive: 7 GB
Sound: Direct X 9.0c Compatible Sound Card Windows Experience Index: 4.5

Kaziel
Feb 24, 2011, 02:32 PM
has anyone been able to sign up for the lottery? I click the link and it says error

Read this (http://www.pso-world.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2604935&postcount=4) post.

McLaughlin
Feb 24, 2011, 03:47 PM
Dunno, but they're definitely picking themselves back up with the Phantasy Star Portable franchise.

The Portable games aren't done by Sonic Team.

Edit: Keep in mind Alpha requirements are usually higher than the finished product's because nothing is optimized yet.

Corey Blue
Feb 24, 2011, 03:49 PM
Just for anyone that is curious, here are the system specs (Required and Recommended) for Dragon Age 2 for PC. DA2 comes out next month and got excellent reviews for it's previous game (Dragon Age:Origins). Note that the minimum specs are pretty close to what the specs are for the PSO2 Alpha. If those truly are the PSO2 MINIMUM requirements, then this looks very promising graphically.

Someone on the SEGA forums said that this is the minimum requirement's for Mass Effect 2, so there's no doubt the game is going to look good.:D

Ezodagrom
Feb 24, 2011, 03:51 PM
Someone on the SEGA forums said that this is the minimum requirement's for Mass Effect 2, so there's no doubt the game is going to look good.:D
They're a little bit higher than ME2 minimum requirements, but they're quite close.

Kaziel
Feb 24, 2011, 03:52 PM
The Portable games aren't done by Sonic Team.

Sonic Team is listed as one of the developers for PSP1 though.

Corey Blue
Feb 24, 2011, 03:58 PM
They're a little bit higher than ME2 minimum requirements, but they're quite close.

A step in the right direction,and my curiosity just went up,I want some damn concept art!

McLaughlin
Feb 24, 2011, 04:58 PM
Sonic Team is listed as one of the developers for PSP1 though.

Pretty sure it was "produced" by Sonic Team but developed by Alfa System. I doubt they had much of anything to do with it besides handing over visual assets. PSP2 was developed by Alfa System and published by SEGA.

Kaziel
Feb 24, 2011, 04:59 PM
Pretty sure it was "produced" by Sonic Team but developed by Alfa System. I doubt they had much of anything to do with it besides handing over visual assets. PSP2 was developed by Alfa System and published by SEGA.

Oh alright. That makes sense.

Ryudo
Feb 24, 2011, 05:14 PM
Those specs scream console port to me

Corey Blue
Feb 24, 2011, 05:20 PM
I hope not,well PS3 maybe,but not 360.

Ezodagrom
Feb 24, 2011, 05:28 PM
Those specs scream console port to me
Well, if this was a console port, it would have been announced for a console already, and the PC version would probably have been an afterthought...I guess...(with specs like this, I guess it could be ported from the PC to a console though).

If the requirements were much higher than this though, it could significantly lower the ammount of players able to play this without major upgrades to their systems, which could be a bit bad for SEGA, less players = less money. :>

Corey Blue
Feb 24, 2011, 05:36 PM
Well, if this was a console port, it would have been announced for a console already, and the PC version would probably have been an afterthought...I guess...(with specs like this, I guess it could be ported from the PC to a console though).

If the requirements were much higher than this though, it could significantly lower the ammount of players able to play this without major upgrades to their systems, which could be a bit bad for SEGA, less players = less money. :>

They would have been announced something about the 360 or PS3 though to ease some people minds.Instead they have a big ass sign at the end of the trailer that say's Windows PC.(Well it is SEGA so who knows what they'll do.)

Mike
Feb 24, 2011, 07:21 PM
Pretty sure it was "produced" by Sonic Team but developed by Alfa System. I doubt they had much of anything to do with it besides handing over visual assets. PSP2 was developed by Alfa System and published by SEGA.
The Sonic Team branding that showed up on PSP1 was the only handheld version of Phantasy Star to do so. Neither Zero, 2, nor 2i feature it. I can't find ST's branding on any part of the PSO2 website either.

EvilMag
Feb 24, 2011, 07:50 PM
Two words when I saw those specs: Console Port.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 24, 2011, 08:29 PM
Why does it need 2 GB of Ram and a dual core processor? It can't be all that bad if that's the minimum requirements. Keep in mind these requirements are just to get the game to run, not necessarily look pretty. There's usually a difference between required and recommended. If this is recommended, be prepared to be disappointed. If this is required, then there may be hope for how good it is.

2GB of ram required? >_>This post is ridiculous. You need at least 2 GB of ram to even run Vista properly, and anyone planning on playing games should have at least 4 GB.

As for a dual core, well, this should not be a problem unless your computer is like five years old, but expecting to play games on a five year old PC is a little unrealistic.



Anyway, I'm still rather disappointed by these specs, but hopefully we get some recommended specs soon, so we can get more of an idea of how performance will be. It also depends on how well optimized the game will be. PSU was optimized like shit, and a 7800GT probably wouldn't be able to run it at full settings without lots of slowdown.

Corey Blue
Feb 24, 2011, 08:30 PM
Two words when I saw those specs: Console Port.

Don't hold your breath,they would have been said something by now.(I could be wrong it may come out for consoles.)

HUkyasuto Mk.2
Feb 24, 2011, 08:32 PM
This post is ridiculous. You need at least 2 GB of ram to even run Vista properly, and anyone planning on playing games should have at least 4 GB.

As for a dual core, well, this should not be a problem unless your computer is like five years old, but expecting to play games on a five year old PC is a little unrealistic.


It runs well on this 2002 one. But the lack of GB makes me miss out on other things, Because PSOBB can only occupy me for so long.

Kent
Feb 24, 2011, 08:34 PM
I guess they may have aimed low with the system requirements in case they want to do a console version port at some point in the future.

And/or they want to keep the doors open to people who aren't snobby PC gaming "enthusiasts," which really works toward broadening their potential userbase.

Pretty sure it was "produced" by Sonic Team but developed by Alfa System. I doubt they had much of anything to do with it besides handing over visual assets. PSP2 was developed by Alfa System and published by SEGA.
The initial Phantasy Star Portable was pretty much just a port of Phantasy Star Universe to the PSP - a game that Sonic Team developed initially.

That's why the Sonic Team logo appears on the game.

Corey Blue
Feb 24, 2011, 08:44 PM
I guess they may have aimed low with the system requirements in case they want to do a console version port at some point in the future.

And/or they want to keep the doors open to people who aren't snobby PC gaming "enthusiasts," which really works toward broadening their potential userbase.

The initial Phantasy Star Portable was pretty much just a port of Phantasy Star Universe to the PSP - a game that Sonic Team developed initially.

That's why the Sonic Team logo appears on the game.

I personally think they would have made an announcement about the console version already,so people wont be out getting the PC version,then all of sudden they say,look here we console version out now,that would stupid as hell.(imo)(They might release it later but still people might be trying to upgrade their pc's when they don't have to.)

McLaughlin
Feb 24, 2011, 08:59 PM
You don't need to repeat yourself every time you see the word "console."

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 24, 2011, 09:00 PM
I personally think they would have made an announcement about the console version already,so people wont be out getting the PC version,then all of sudden they say,look here we console version out now,that would stupid as hell.(imo)(They might release it later but still people might be trying to upgrade their pc's when they don't have to.)If anyone has to upgrade their PC to meet these requirements, then they have no business playing PC games at all.

Nitro Vordex
Feb 24, 2011, 09:20 PM
This post is ridiculous. You need at least 2 GB of ram to even run Vista properly, and anyone planning on playing games should have at least 4 GB.

As for a dual core, well, this should not be a problem unless your computer is like five years old, but expecting to play games on a five year old PC is a little unrealistic.



Anyway, I'm still rather disappointed by these specs, but hopefully we get some recommended specs soon, so we can get more of an idea of how performance will be. It also depends on how well optimized the game will be. PSU was optimized like shit, and a 7800GT probably wouldn't be able to run it at full settings without lots of slowdown.
Yeah, not everybody has tons of disposable income, ya jackass. I'm only just now able to afford a computer that isn't from the stone age.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 24, 2011, 09:28 PM
Just saying you shouldn't be surprised by the requirements.

Oh also getting a mid-range PC is not nearly as expensive as some people seem to think it is.

Nitro Vordex
Feb 24, 2011, 09:29 PM
I'm working on a budget build right now. It'll be more than enough to power anything that isn't google.com PSO2.

NoiseHERO
Feb 24, 2011, 09:35 PM
I have 1 GB ram.

Come at me bro.

pikachief
Feb 24, 2011, 09:47 PM
hmm i wonder if my laptop could run it... maybe not... idk it runs PSU perfectly fine and TF2 and such but it has a hard time running minecraft D: lol

Corey Blue
Feb 24, 2011, 09:49 PM
Yeah, not everybody has tons of disposable income, ya jackass. I'm only just now able to afford a computer that isn't from the stone age.

I'm in the same boat,I wouldn't mind a console version,but I'm going to be on the move alot,and I rarely play my 360,and no way hell I'm getting a PS3,so this is a console gamer that wants this game on the pc for the good of the community.(Hope it dont backfire.)Hopefully by time it releases we'll have a decent upgrade.

Arkios
Feb 24, 2011, 11:09 PM
The Sonic Team branding that showed up on PSP1 was the only handheld version of Phantasy Star to do so. Neither Zero, 2, nor 2i feature it. I can't find ST's branding on any part of the PSO2 website either.

Do we have any information on who the developer for PSO2 is? Obviously the publisher is SEGA.

I'm curious because I looked up Alfa System and they WERE known for being a developer that primarily made PC games. This was the case until they started making games specifically for SONY.

Randomness
Feb 24, 2011, 11:27 PM
For a second there I thought it said 7.2 Gb of ram for vista.

My laptop is kind of close to having that much RAM.

If this is ME2 level, then the graphics will be just fine, and my laptop should be able to handle it on max settings. (Until the heat builds up, anyways)



Just saying you shouldn't be surprised by the requirements.

Oh also getting a mid-range PC is not nearly as expensive as some people seem to think it is.

If you wait for a good bargain, you can probably pick one up for around $500-600. My brother just found a good laptop for $800.

Splash
Feb 24, 2011, 11:35 PM
A console would be good, but I don't mind it being PC.

I'm going to have to use my Windows 7 computer to play it though.

landman
Feb 25, 2011, 12:43 AM
Sonic Team is just a brand, it hasn't really existed since 2005 or so, I don't think we are wrong if we think that today Sakai has one "team" of his own. If Sonic Team hasn't appeared as a brand in the past titles it is because they didn't want.

Ezodagrom
Feb 25, 2011, 01:15 AM
Sonic Team is just a brand, it hasn't really existed since 2005 or so, I don't think we are wrong if we think that today Sakai has one "team" of his own. If Sonic Team hasn't appeared as a brand in the past titles it is because they didn't want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzYUjCd1hQM

Checkmate
Feb 25, 2011, 05:37 AM
Can't believe there is so much gripe and complaints and such about the earliest of the early stages of a game that has yet to even produce a single solitary screenshot. People should be jumping thru the roofs at the "MINIMUM" requirements to run around, swing a sword and blast a foe.

If you have a really old laptop, you may not be able to deal with heavy/crowded lobbies or areas. If you have a really old desktop, no worries. Get some new, compatible RAM and a graphics card. Boom. Done.

Anyone can play a game slightly below these requirements however your performance will be lackluster, naturally. No need to have some techophobia. You're not gonna break the bank to do a little PC upgrading unless you're a pot head living in some family member's house and haven't worked in years. If you can afford to smoke a bowl every so often, you can afford to upgrade. If you can afford to buy a box of cigarettes once a week, you can afford to upgrade. Hell, if you can afford a monthly fee for another MMO you've been playing for 3+ years, you can afford an upgrade.

Gee Gee!

Too long to read??
Ex.: You ain't gettin the full immersion effect of your Inception BluRay disc with that 26" CRT TV and 2.1 Panasonic speakers in your dining room that has the window glare in the back. Yes, people still eat at the table and watch TV at the same time. Best of both worlds!!

Ezodagrom
Feb 25, 2011, 12:06 PM
If you have a really old desktop, no worries. Get some new, compatible RAM and a graphics card. Boom. Done.
Depends on how old. If someone is still using one of the older Pentium 4s, those that still used DDR1 RAM and AGP graphics, that person pretty much needs to fully upgrade.
Otherwise, you're right for people that have up to 5 years old (or so) desktops. Get more RAM and a new graphics card and it shoud be good to go.

Might as well leave here some examples of good cards below $100:
$65 - $75:
Radeon HD4670, Radeon HD5570, Geforce GT430 (the one with the best performance is the 4670, with the 5570 really close, and the GT430 behind both).

$80 - $90:
Radeon HD5670, Geforce GT240, Geforce GT440 (Both GT240 and GT440 should have similar performance, but the HD5670 is better than both).

Kaziel
Feb 25, 2011, 12:25 PM
I'm starting to think these are Minimum Requirements.

The graphics card they listed is far from high-performance. You could probably easily find it for $60ish. When you start paying $150+ is when you should start considering your Video Card a high end card.

As long as your computer's motherboard supports "PCI express"(Video Card), at least "DDR2"(RAM), and some form of multi-core(Processor) settings; you should be fine. Upgrading these 3 core components to the requirements listed here would be easily under $200.

unicorn
Feb 25, 2011, 12:42 PM
So why do the requirements state a Japanese OS?

Kaziel
Feb 25, 2011, 12:46 PM
So why do the requirements state a Japanese OS?

It's for the Japanese Alpha test. US releases will use an English-based OS(specifically XP and 7).

Zyrusticae
Feb 25, 2011, 01:30 PM
You guys are silly. You can't figure out the height of a game's graphical fidelity by its minimum or even its recommended requirements.

EXAMPLE:
The Crysis requirements are listed as such:
OS - Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor - 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster* (Vista)
Memory - 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card -256 MB**
Hard Drive - 12GB
Sound Card - DirectX 9.0c compatible

You COULD run the game with a system like this. But only on the very lowest settings with a barely playable framerate. Even the recommended requirements, like so:

OS - Windows XP / Vista
Processor - Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Memory - 2.0 GB RAM
GPU - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar

Can BARELY play the game on high. To play the game on very high with a high resolution and anti-aliasing you basically needed a machine from the future to run it all at a smooth clip (I'm only just now able to run it with such settings with a frame rate close to 30 with two GTX 260s in SLI and a quad core processor).

So, basically, these requirements are indicative of nothing other than the bare minimum to run the game. The faster your computer, the better, without question. There's no telling just how high the game will actually scale.

landman
Feb 25, 2011, 03:05 PM
YouTube - Sonic Colors Wii [Part 18 - Credits] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzYUjCd1hQM)
Sonic 4 also has the Sonic Team logo, and it was developed by Dimps. As I said, the Sonic Team logo is used as a brand today.

Nitro Vordex
Feb 25, 2011, 03:37 PM
Crysis
Totally not valid, as this game is a benchmark for how badly can we fuck up your computer.

Seriously, Crysis doesn't even sound like a game anymore. It's more of a 60 dollar stress test.

Zyrusticae
Feb 25, 2011, 03:40 PM
Not valid as an example of system requirements being nothing more than a picture of the bare minimum to run the game at the lowest settings?

I wanna have what yer smokin'.

Ezodagrom
Feb 25, 2011, 03:50 PM
A better example, Battlefield Bad Company 2.

Minimum Requirements:
Core 2 Duo @2.0GHz, 2GB RAM, Geforce 7800GT or Radeon X1900, pretty much similar requirements to PSO2 alpha.

Recommended Requirements:
Core 2 Quad or better, 2GB RAM, Geforce GTX260 or Radeon HD4870, these are considerably higher than the minimum requirements.

Checkmate
Feb 25, 2011, 04:29 PM
Also, for the non-techy types... just a tip.

Find out if your Operating System (i.e. Windows XP/Vista or Mac, etc) is either 32-bit or 64-bit. Max you can upgrade to for RAM on a 32-bit OS is 3GB of ram which rounds out to be 1GB card per slot sometimes. There is no point in buying extra cards and placing them into your MotherBoard. The OS will not read or accept them.

64-Bit OS, i believe, will recognize whatever your MotherBoard can handle. Read the MotherBoards manual for compatible RAM, search online for availability and bargain pricings. Odds are, if your computer is that old, you can get them for dirt cheap.

It's really that easy.

Nitro Vordex
Feb 25, 2011, 04:33 PM
Not valid as an example of system requirements being nothing more than a picture of the bare minimum to run the game at the lowest settings?

I wanna have what yer smokin'.
You'll have to go back to 2004 buddy, where high quality is considered a single core processor and 512 MB of DDR1 RAM.

Shit is so aged.

Kaziel
Feb 25, 2011, 04:46 PM
Seriously, Crysis doesn't even sound like a game anymore. It's more of a 60 dollar stress test.

That's pretty much the only reason you'll hear about that game today. Lol.

Zyrusticae
Feb 25, 2011, 06:43 PM
You'll have to go back to 2004 buddy, where high quality is considered a single core processor and 512 MB of DDR1 RAM.

Shit is so aged.
All I can pick up from your post is nonsense.

Are you incapable of using logic or wording things in a coherent manner? I really shouldn't have to try to decipher your words. And you also should not be posting while under the influence of mind-affecting drugs.


That's pretty much the only reason you'll hear about that game today. Lol.
Wrong, and also irrelevant. Quit missing the point, people!

Kaziel
Feb 25, 2011, 06:54 PM
Wrong, and also irrelevant. Quit missing the point, people!

Hey whoa. I'm not missing any point. The only time I hear about Crysis is when people say "YAH MY CPU IZ SO FST IT CN RUN CRYSYS". I ask them about the aliens and they ask me "what aliens?"

That's my point.

Dongra
Feb 25, 2011, 06:57 PM
It's more of a 60 dollar stress test.
I thought it was a 60 dollar stress test with an average shooter thrown in as a bonus. Also, I think it's cheaper now.

Zyrusticae
Feb 25, 2011, 07:52 PM
an average shooter
...Seriously?

I bet half the folks who criticize Crysis either have no imagination (i.e. they always play by only using cloak to head shot everyone) or didn't play the game at all. Most of it's probably the former, actually. A GAME THAT ENCOURAGES YOU TO BE CREATIVE, WHO'DA THUNK IT?!

But seriously, the only reason I brought it up was to illustrate that minimum reqs =/= maximum graphics capabilities. Can we please get back on to that?

BIG OLAF
Feb 25, 2011, 07:59 PM
Haven't read this thread in a while. Has it become some sort of E-peen competition to see whose computer is 1337 enough to run Crysis or something? Like anyone cares.

Dongra
Feb 25, 2011, 08:03 PM
Not really, no. I think only one or two people have brought up Crysis as an example.

Arkios
Feb 25, 2011, 08:21 PM
Also, for the non-techy types... just a tip.

Find out if your Operating System (i.e. Windows XP/Vista or Mac, etc) is either 32-bit or 64-bit. Max you can upgrade to for RAM on a 32-bit OS is 3GB of ram which rounds out to be 1GB card per slot sometimes. There is no point in buying extra cards and placing them into your MotherBoard. The OS will not read or accept them.

64-Bit OS, i believe, will recognize whatever your MotherBoard can handle. Read the MotherBoards manual for compatible RAM, search online for availability and bargain pricings. Odds are, if your computer is that old, you can get them for dirt cheap.

It's really that easy.

It's actually up to 4GB of RAM for a 32-bit OS. The amount of RAM for a 64-bit OS depends upon the operating system used.

ThEoRy
Feb 25, 2011, 09:00 PM
If anyone has to upgrade their PC to meet these requirements, then they have no business playing PC games at all.

That's not true. Don't be like that. I use my pc for recording music so I have an awesome sound card and good ram. However there is no need for me to have a good video card as it is irrelevant to my needs. Now if pso2 is pc only and no console port is released, well then I have to upgrade my video card now don't I?

I have every right to play whatever I like however I like to play it. Your assume to know too much about other peoples business. You do not.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 25, 2011, 09:07 PM
Sorry, you seem to have taken me seriously.

Do try to refrain from doing so in the future.

ThEoRy
Feb 25, 2011, 09:36 PM
Sorry, you seem to have taken me seriously.

Do try to refrain from doing so in the future.



The Internet.



Serious business.


:)

Arkios
Feb 25, 2011, 09:42 PM
The Internet.



Serious business.


:)

In all fairness, his title is "Douche of Tears"...

TheMoreYouKnow.jpg

Jinketsu
Feb 25, 2011, 10:41 PM
I dunno.. it's kind of Ffuzzy.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 25, 2011, 11:21 PM
I just realized the irony in people discussing who produced the PSP games in a topic with the phrase "Alpha System" in the title.

I'm pretty slow tonight, I guess.

RemiusTA
Feb 26, 2011, 12:44 AM
Inb4 this game is on F2P lvl graphics and PSO 2 is nothing more than a great business model for a franchise cashout.

Im looking directly at you, Sonic 4. They had absolutely no problem bullshitting their mascot for some quick cash, and something tells me this game is going to be a low risk/high reward title. (Or more like, low effort / great profit. I.E. PSU trying to stretch content by unlocking it off the disc. Jesus christ.) Then again, this isn't a Beta test, it's an alpha. There's a possibility that even 50% of the stuff i the Alpha will be cut anyway. (HIGHLY unlikely, but possible.)


If anything... we should at least be happy they're allowing us to test the game this early in its development. Them allowing us to tell us what sucks and what they need to focus on even before they even arrive at the "brush up" phase is a good deal.

Im just praying they're bringing a good amount of shit to the table.

NoiseHERO
Feb 26, 2011, 01:26 AM
Inb4 this game is on F2P lvl graphics and PSO 2 is nothing more than a great business model for a franchise cashout.

Im looking directly at you, Sonic 4. They had absolutely no problem bullshitting their mascot for some quick cash, and something tells me this game is going to be a low risk/high reward title. (Or more like, low effort / great profit. I.E. PSU trying to stretch content by unlocking it off the disc. Jesus christ.) Then again, this isn't a Beta test, it's an alpha. There's a possibility that even 50% of the stuff i the Alpha will be cut anyway. (HIGHLY unlikely, but possible.)


If anything... we should at least be happy they're allowing us to test the game this early in its development. Them allowing us to tell us what sucks and what they need to focus on even before they even arrive at the "brush up" phase is a good deal.

Im just praying they're bringing a good amount of shit to the table.

Wait... us telling them what sucks? Or japanese players...? D:

Corey Blue
Feb 26, 2011, 03:13 AM
For those who are looking for a good budget gaming pc http://www.ibuypower.com/ they have some great deals in the 500-600 dollar range.(Should be enough to play PSO2.)I'm getting my pc from there that's for sure.

The Last Baron
Feb 26, 2011, 03:27 AM
No, go to http://www.tigerdirect.com

Talk about great deals

BIG OLAF
Feb 26, 2011, 04:31 AM
A bit of a technical question, but I've never understood graphics card "ratings". I've tried looking for a comprehensive "this card is better than that one" list, but to no avail. I'm not tech-savvy, so I don't know if (for example) a NVIDIA GeForce 7800GT is better than a ATI Radeon HD 5570, or any of that wacky computer garble.

Is there any (easy) way to decipher the "hierarchy" of graphics cards?

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 26, 2011, 05:16 AM
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-geforce-gtx-560-ti-gaming-graphics-card,2857-7.html


A 5570 is by no means great, but it is significantly better than a 7800GT. In other words, yes, you meet the requirements.

Ezodagrom
Feb 26, 2011, 05:25 AM
A bit of a technical question, but I've never understood graphics card "ratings". I've tried looking for a comprehensive "this card is better than that one" list, but to no avail. I'm not tech-savvy, so I don't know if (for example) a NVIDIA GeForce 7800GT is better than a ATI Radeon HD 5570, or any of that wacky computer garble.

Is there any (easy) way to decipher the "hierarchy" of graphics cards?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-geforce-gtx-560-ti-gaming-graphics-card,2857-7.html
Cards in the top tiers are the best, cards in lower tiers are the worst, cards in the same tier have somewhat close performance.

The first number is the number of the series.
- HD6870 belongs to the 6000 series from AMD, GTX560 belongs to the 500 series from Nvidia.

The rest of the number should indicate the performance of a certain card in a specific series.
- HD6950 > HD6870, but that doesn't mean that an HD4890 is better than an HD6870, since they're from different series.
- An HD5450 isn't better than an HD4890, while the 5450 is newer, it's also just a low end card, while the 4890 was a previous gen top card.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 26, 2011, 05:26 AM
Haha, stole your link!

Shadownami92
Mar 23, 2011, 03:40 PM
Another thing that sometimes cause be a reason to buy one graphics card over another though is compatabilitiy with the games. Sometimes based on what graphics cards the developer uses there can sometimes be some incompatibility with specific shaders.

It happens a bit more with ATI cards, and it's a bit rare, but as I do 3d art I tend to hear a complaint about certain shaders working with ATI cards a bit from people testing 3d models in a game engine, or playing some games in general.

Granted ATI cards are good cards and cost a bit less for the same power, they do have that rare problem at times.

Personally though my computer is 5 to 6 years old and I just needed a graphics card upgrade and a RAM upgrade and it's still working pretty well. That and im using a Geforce 9600 and since I only needed 2GB more of DDR2 of RAM since thats the limit for me it was pretty inexpensive at the time.

Alisha
Mar 31, 2011, 07:24 PM
frankly i hope this game comes out for a console since my pc was built in 2002 lolz my ps3 is probally more powerful than my pc.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Mar 31, 2011, 09:06 PM
If your computer is from 2002, you're lucky that is even still working.

RemiusTA
Mar 31, 2011, 09:16 PM
pretty much. The cheapest PC you can buy today is likely a few times more powerful than your 2002 PC.

Nitro Vordex
Apr 1, 2011, 02:27 AM
frankly i hope this game comes out for a console since my pc was built in 2002 lolz my ps3 is probally more powerful than my pc.
How the hell are you even running a web browser nowadays.

Alisha
Apr 1, 2011, 06:09 AM
i use firefox and chrome just fine. adblock plus is a godsend though.

Nitro Vordex
Apr 1, 2011, 12:00 PM
Now I'm really curious what you're running. :wacko:

New account
Apr 19, 2011, 04:29 AM
Now I'm really curious what you're running. :wacko:Using a computer from 2002 is not any problem at all as long as you don't install any Microsoft programs on the computer. Microsoft programs seem to try to use up as much power as possible just for the sake of it, maybe to make it sound impressive. My laptop from 2002 running Linux is as fast as ever, but I recently had to switch because of various hardware issues (several more-or-less dead keys on the keyboard, lots of dead rows of pixels on the screen et cetera).

Now for another thing... I'm looking at the requirements for the PSO2 α at http://pso2.jp/alpha/ and I'm troubled by the strange format they are written in.

The CPU requirement is given as "Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 or above", which is very confusing: I had to search for a long time on Google to confirm that my Intel Core I3 CPU with 2.40 GHz and a 3 MB cache. Why can't SEGA just write the required frequency and cache size directly instead of forcing all users to Google for the specified CPU? Very annoying.

The graphics card requirement is given as "NVIDIA GeForce 7800GT, same class of graphics card or above" (NVIDIA GeForce 7800GT もしくは同クラスのグラフィックカード以上). My graphics card is apparently called "Intel Corporation Core Processor Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 18)". It is obviously not the same card, but how do I tell if it is "above" or not?

It also says that the sound card has to be compatible with Direct Sound. How do I check whether it is? Is it possible to do this without having to reboot into Windows?

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 19, 2011, 05:38 AM
The game itself is only for Windows, so you're going to have to use WINE at the very least to even run the thing.



Core i3s are all dual cores and are newer than the Core 2 Duo series, so your CPU is fine.

Your GPU looks like an old as shit integrated model. You need to buy a card.

Nitro Vordex
Apr 19, 2011, 02:20 PM
Generally, integrated graphics are a terrible choice for games, because for the most part they aren't meant to run intensive games. Some can be used for that, but it usually doesn't happen. That being said, you'll definitely need a new card. You could probably go for an 8800 if you want to save money, but if you want performance, go with one of the 2xx's or 3xx's. Don't worry about the sound, pretty much everything uses the same kind of sound.

As for the Windows thing, laptops aren't that powerful to begin with, especially from 2002. So when you say "as fast as ever", I can only think mean you mean that relatively. Also considering how fat Firefox is at times that worries me even more. But if you had it running fine then cheers to you.

Kaziel
Apr 20, 2011, 04:53 PM
Using a computer from 2002 is not any problem at all as long as you don't install any Microsoft programs on the computer. Microsoft programs seem to try to use up as much power as possible just for the sake of it, maybe to make it sound impressive. My laptop from 2002 running Linux is as fast as ever, but I recently had to switch because of various hardware issues (several more-or-less dead keys on the keyboard, lots of dead rows of pixels on the screen et cetera).

*snicker*

Zyrusticae
Apr 20, 2011, 05:09 PM
The irrational hate of Windows is pretty damn funny.

As is the attitude that, just because yer not running windows, upgrading should never be necessary.

Utterly hilarious!

Ezodagrom
Apr 20, 2011, 08:46 PM
That being said, you'll definitely need a new card. You could probably go for an 8800 if you want to save money, but if you want performance, go with one of the 2xx's or 3xx's.
The Geforce 8800GT is kinda outdated nowadays (it's not even sold anymore, I think). For around $100 there's better cards than it, like the Radeon HD5750, HD5770, and the Geforce GTS450.

List of graphics cards from around $75 to around $150, including older cards (which aren't sold anymore) just for performance comparison.
The list goes from the weakest to the strongest:

- Geforce 9600GT, Geforce GT240, Geforce GT440
- Radeon HD5670
- Geforce 8800GT, Geforce 9800GT, Radeon HD4830, Radeon HD6670
- Geforce 9800GTX+, Geforce GTS250, Radeon HD4850
- Geforce GTS450, Radeon HD5750
- Geforce GTX260, Radeon HD4870, Radeon HD5770
- Geforce GTX550 Ti
- Radeon HD6790, Radeon HD5830
- Geforce GTX460 768MB, Geforce GTX275, Radeon HD4890

RemiusTA
Apr 21, 2011, 06:30 PM
Using a computer from 2002 is not any problem at all as long as you don't install any Microsoft programs on the computer. Microsoft programs seem to try to use up as much power as possible just for the sake of it, maybe to make it sound impressive. My laptop from 2002 running Linux is as fast as ever, but I recently had to switch because of various hardware issues (several more-or-less dead keys on the keyboard, lots of dead rows of pixels on the screen et cetera).HAHAHAHAHA


o MAN this is great

NoiseHERO
Apr 21, 2011, 06:36 PM
/not getting this computer sense of humour

McLaughlin
Apr 21, 2011, 08:42 PM
/not getting this computer sense of humour

It's funny because there's absolutely no truth to it whatsoever.

rezakon
Apr 24, 2011, 05:14 AM
A computer at those specs would cost about 400$ easy (could probably do it for less then that), I don't have any problems with running it on my rig, it'll literally laugh at it.

Niloklives
Apr 25, 2011, 01:08 AM
yeah I built a new rig this year to replace a machine from 2002. I've got an i7 2600k clocked up to 4.5ghz and a GTX 560ti i overclocked as well...this was the game I was most looking forward to and it looks like i overshot it a little lol.

dias_flac_0g
Apr 25, 2011, 01:29 AM
Lol, 7800gt that's old as **** xD

That said i'm set for this game.

Got a pair of OC MSI GTX 460's in SLI.

I just hope that this game actually uses 1920/1080 and Anti Aliassing.

PSU was crap on PC highest res was 1280/1024 and hardly had support for anything. Was just s a straight up crappy Ps2 port.

Slyster
Apr 25, 2011, 02:42 PM
I was hoping for a bigger leap from PSU to PSO2 but whatever.. Its PSO.

Nagidar
Apr 26, 2011, 11:42 AM
Those requirements "should" drop as they optomize and polish the game before it goes Gold.

NoiseHERO
Apr 26, 2011, 12:08 PM
It's funny because there's absolutely no truth to it whatsoever.

I'm getting the punchline, it's just... it's not funn- AH whatever. D:

Zaix
Apr 26, 2011, 02:39 PM
Lol, 7800gt that's old as **** xD

That said i'm set for this game.

Got a pair of OC MSI GTX 460's in SLI.

I just hope that this game actually uses 1920/1080 and Anti Aliassing.

PSU was crap on PC highest res was 1280/1024 and hardly had support for anything. Was just s a straight up crappy Ps2 port.

I remember on my beastly 2006 pc PSU:AotI ran perfectly, no lag at all...except full settings with dynamic shadows set to enemies (all) when the camera was rotated just right and the shadow ran into a plant or something of that texture...it would slow down like crazy and make the game very hard to play

Sha Sha
Apr 27, 2011, 01:08 AM
I already decided to buy a new up to date gaming laptop when the English (if any) launch gets near. I don't think my current could even run it on lowest setting without costly upgrades, so i rather spend on a new laptop

dias_flac_0g
Apr 27, 2011, 06:23 AM
I remember on my beastly 2006 pc PSU:AotI ran perfectly, no lag at all...except full settings with dynamic shadows set to enemies (all) when the camera was rotated just right and the shadow ran into a plant or something of that texture...it would slow down like crazy and make the game very hard to play

Back then I was rocking a E8500 and a 8800GT Zotac AMP edition my AOTI ran like butter at all times. Never did I experience slwodown.

That said the 8800GT was stronger than anything in 2006 lol.

ShinMaruku
Apr 27, 2011, 10:19 AM
I can run Crysis I'm good to go.

RenzokukenZ
Apr 27, 2011, 10:43 AM
^ If anyone else's can to, then you're in the green.