Minimum & Recommended system requirement

[jeff]

The linked article claims you need to check in with ubisoft's servers every single time you launch the game, not just at install(which is problematic to begin with imo).

What do you mean by problematic, because if you need to check in everytime you start the game, that's a problem.

[TheUndeadKing]

...although they do still require an Internet connection to authenticate the game on start-up.

That somewhat sounds vague to me. I really hope it's just one time authentication when you first install the game (like in Steam), and not a constant check every time you launch the game.

[Blocks100]

So I'm running a Athlon 4800, just below the minimum spec - meet all the other requirements though. If I turn everything to low/off, any chance it'll run? Do hope there's going to be a demo so I can 'test' it.

[TheUndeadKing]

^ It will definitely RUN on your computer, regardless of settings. And if your video card is above the requirements I think it should run just fine. But don't take my words for granted, because I really don't know how well the game is optimized. Do test it if a demo comes out.

For instance, BioShock requires a dual core processor as a minimum system requirement, but it was optimized so well that I even played it on a machine that had an old single core processor which wasn't even overclocked at all.

[HenL]

Update on Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood's DRM:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03 ... ic-change/

[TheUndeadKing]

So, it is just one time authentication during installation (Good to know I wasn't the only one confused with the wording of that). I guess it's better than requiring a constant internet connection or "checking" it every time you run the game. Of course, it would be even better if it didn't require an internet connection at all.

[jeff]

So, it is just one time authentication during installation (Good to know I wasn't the only one confused with the wording of that). I guess it's better than requiring a constant internet connection or "checking" it every time you run the game. Of course, it would be even better if it didn't require an internet connection at all.

True, but you probably would want to register the game. I'm ok with it if it does this authentication while I am submitting my registration.

[ThunderTitan]

lol, on paper H6 requires more than graphic-heavy games such as Batman: Arkham Asylum, BioShock 1 & 2, Mass Effect 1 & 2, etc. It's even on par with Civilization V as minimum requirements go, but that doesn't count because Civ V is a bit too harsh on recommended specs.

Yeah, weird how games that have to run on 5+ years old hardware (consoles) don't have high requirements...

[TheUndeadKing]

...and yet they all look (and probably run) better than games like H6 with up-to-date system requirements...

[ThunderTitan]

Is almost as if strategy games where you have more units running around require more then just running graphics...


But it's not just that, a game's graphics can be lower tech and yet look better to your eye depending on a lot of things... just look at 3D vs 2D from around 2000-2001... back then everyone loved how 3D looked, but now i'm sure everyone will say the 2D games look better because the 3D has aged badly...

[TheUndeadKing]

I know, I know, I just don't feel that H6 looks technically good enough to justify its system requirements. The system requirements are pretty much tripled from the previous title, but the game already looks a bit aged - better than H5, yes, but still, "aged". It's like the requirements are from 2011, but the game looks like as if it came out in 2008. What's worse is (again "technically") H5 had more things going on screen - for instance, it had caravans, etc on the adventure map and it had full screen animated 3D town screens. The game was poorly optimized, yeah, but it was capable of doing more with much less system resources. Now in H6, all we get is new, updated textures and better lighting, but also a 2D town screen that doesn't even go full screen.

And if the game isn't going to live up to its requirements, why bother updating it just for the sake of updating it? Look at Disciples 3 - the requirements are from 2006, yet the game came out in 2010. With low requirements more people can play it and less people would complain about it "looking not that good" since the requirements weren't high in the first place.

(Oh, and yeah, 2D graphics will always look better for most games, because it requires more hard work and craftsmanship and not to mention they are least dependent on graphical hardware.)

[Mirez]

we have hardly seen any actual gameplay yet (aside for some short bits) so it's a little to early to draw conclusions

[TheUndeadKing]

Sure, but I wouldn't have my hopes up too high.

[ThunderTitan]

Now in H6, all we get is new, updated textures and better lighting, but also a 2D town screen that doesn't even go full screen.

The screen matters little beyond the time it takes to load it at the start...

The same resources that are used on the Adv Map graphics are used for the 3D town screen, so it makes little difference to the min/recommended sys reqs in that regard.

It's like the requirements are from 2011, but the game looks like as if it came out in 2008.

Show me a better looking strategy game... (on the technical side i mean).

[TheUndeadKing]

The screen matters little beyond the time it takes to load it at the start...

Then why do we get a town window instead of a full screen town interface?

The same resources that are used on the Adv Map graphics are used for the 3D town screen, so it makes little difference to the min/recommended sys reqs in that regard.

Theoretically you're right, but 3D effects are more complicated than you think. Particle effects can sometimes be a pain to optimize properly. For example; my friend had trouble navigating the inferno and dwarven towns in H5 (the fugliest towns in H5 IMO) because his computer was slowing down when there were a lot of fire/lava particle effects. He had little to no problems on the adventure map (well, except the intense lava parts) and his computer was above the requirements. And bad optimization isn't something exclusive to Nival - even better companies can eff up at times.

Show me a better looking strategy game... (on the technical side i mean).

Civilization V (but I do realize it can be more demanding system-wise). I would've also nominated Disciples III, if it wasn't riddled with bugs and if it didn't hide its "low poly stuff" with good art.

[ThunderTitan]

Then why do we get a town window instead of a full screen town interface?

Because while it might not matter from a technical standpoint it's still extra work for the devs...

Theoretically you're right, but 3D effects are more complicated than you think. Particle effects can sometimes be a pain to optimize properly. For example; my friend had trouble navigating the inferno and dwarven towns in H5 (the fugliest towns in H5 IMO) because his computer was slowing down when there were a lot of fire/lava particle effects. He had little to no problems on the adventure map (well, except the intense lava parts) and his computer was above the requirements. And bad optimization isn't something exclusive to Nival - even better companies can eff up at times.

As you mentioned, it was the particle effects that did it, and they had the same effect on the adv map, there were just not as prevalent...

Easy fix, stop using them so much in the towns... think of better ways to make the towns interesting (like H3 style 2D screens).

Civilization V (but I do realize it can be more demanding system-wise). I would've also nominated Disciples III, if it wasn't riddled with bugs and if it didn't hide its "low poly stuff" with good art.

I said on the technical side... Civ V doesn't have much zoom.

And D3's graphics just looked odd... like they where made out of paper mache or something...

[TheUndeadKing]

But Civ V has more active (animated) units on the map and sometimes it can get way too crowded (units on every tile, unlike HoMM).

As for Disciples III, I think the models had poor animations which made them look even worse. It was a step back from Disciples II in which some units had kick-ass animations (remember Phantom Warriors? they were my favourites).

[ThunderTitan]

But Civ V has more active (animated) units on the map and sometimes it can get way too crowded (units on every tile, unlike HoMM).

And a FPS from the mid 90's had much bigger maps then current FPS's...

[hatsforclowns]

I don't like graphiXXX Doom (and other classics in their respective style) is still kicking the living snot out of the generic, mass produced, gaming industry bollocks that is touted as modern "innovation."

Graphical style >> Graphical complexity.

The more of this modern spoot I play, the more cynical I become X(

Gaming art >> Gaming industry.

Which is also why I'm so incredibly thankful to all the independent developers who make games, mods, and conversions, keeping the art alive. From the bottom of my heart, thank you!

[TheUndeadKing]

And a FPS from the mid 90's had much bigger maps then current FPS's...

Correct, and I do miss those large maps to be honest, but you've got to admit it - they were graphically less complex than today's maps (basic lighting, basic shadows, low resolution textures, less polygons, etc).