Bethesda reveals Rage's modest system requirements

Matthew

Posts: 5,269   +103
With Rage set to ship in less than a month, Bethesda has published the title's minimum and recommended system specifications -- both of which seem relatively modest. Folks should have…

Read the whole story
 
G

Guest

25GB? Bah! Why get an SSD that can't afford to have 25GB worth of games on it? With hard links you can swap stuff for steam on and off your SSD no problem anyway.
 

Leeky

Posts: 3,357   +116
Besides loading game content much faster than a mechanical disk having an SSD doesn't really make any noticeable difference to your experience in game anyway.

So the game will load much faster, and loading between levels will be quicker - but other than that its pretty much the same as using a traditional disk.
 

jetkami

Posts: 100   +1
Looks like console crap to me. I did not buy a gtx570 to play console garbage. I will buy if from steam when it goes below $15.00.
 
G

Guest

Did anyone notice Jesse playing Rage on the last two episodes of Breaking Bad? Cool product promotion.

And where's our weekend game deals?
 

Burty117

Posts: 3,760   +1,626
To be fair, I recently built a PC which uses a 60GB OCZ Solid 3 SSD and a 450GB Western Digital Velociraptor and it really depends on the game if you want an increase in speed on the SSD.

Windows Definately loads much faster if the SSD is used as the boot drive but the games were a different story.

Doom 3, Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress 2, Mass Effect 2, Crysis and World of Warcraft did not load much faster on the SSD (like 1 or 2 seconds faster if that).

While the orginal Mass Effect, Supreme Commander, Starcraft II, Company of Heros and The Witcher 2 did load noticeibly faster?

Dunno, just thought I'd throw out my findings with SSD games performance.
 

mccartercar

Posts: 141   +26
jetkami said:
Looks like console crap to me. I did not buy a gtx570 to play console garbage. I will buy if from steam when it goes below $15.00.
Really? Cause if you bothered to watch the gameplay video most interactions were done with the "E" button. I cant find an "E" button on my xbox 360 or PS3 controller...How about anyone else?
This game has gone through painstaking detail and polishing to look and play its best on all platforms...the best of which to be played on is the PC. One word...MEGATEXTURES!
Now......R@GE!!!!
 

Leeky

Posts: 3,357   +116
To be fair, I recently built a PC which uses a 60GB OCZ Solid 3 SSD and a 450GB Western Digital Velociraptor and it really depends on the game if you want an increase in speed on the SSD.

Windows Definately loads much faster if the SSD is used as the boot drive but the games were a different story.

Doom 3, Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress 2, Mass Effect 2, Crysis and World of Warcraft did not load much faster on the SSD (like 1 or 2 seconds faster if that).

While the orginal Mass Effect, Supreme Commander, Starcraft II, Company of Heros and The Witcher 2 did load noticeibly faster?

Dunno, just thought I'd throw out my findings with SSD games performance.
My conclusions were similar when I had my 256GB SSD, before its ill fated death. Now I use my old Linux SSD (64GB) for my Windows 7 install paired with a 1TB Spinpoint F3 and I really can't say I notice much reduction in game peformance.

In fact, I recently overhauled my brothers i7 PC and that was fitted with a Samsung Spinpoint 640GB hard disk, and I can't say it felt any different in regards to load times with games. The OS was noticeably slower to load than my PC with its SSD, but gaming acted no different at all.

The lack of difference is certainly enough to prevent me bothering with a large capacity SSD for my games in the future. I'll stick with a 60-120GB SSD for W7 and applications, and keep my games on the 1TB hard disk.
 

LNCPapa

Posts: 4,310   +567
TS Special Forces
My SSD experience shows that the OS boots much faster (I don't really care since I almost never reboot) and only one game has noticeably shorter load times, Rift. I'd happily trade the funds spent on an SSD for a faster GPU in my lappy and slower load speeds. I'll have to install a few more recent games to give more input.

Oops - forgot, Civ5 loads faster too.
 

treetops

Posts: 2,980   +746
Its funny that games are barely utilizing quad cores when we have hex cores. Damn consoles.
 

TomSEA

Posts: 3,248   +1,877
I agree with burty117. Game performance is almost unnoticeable when running off an SSD. In some cases, it is even slower (albeit by 1-2 seconds). But my OS runs like a dream on it.

With these unbelievable minimal video settings, it looks like this is going to be another crappy console port. I was tempted to pre-purchase, but I'm definitely holding off now until I see some PC reviews.
 

yukka

Posts: 870   +79
PS3 version will have higher rez textures than the 360 version because it will utilise the extra storage capacity of the bluray disk.

As far as this being console crap, it is multiplatform but ID Software were the front runners of 3D gaming years ago. The problem I have seen so far with this game is that nothing looks great compared to Borderlands
 

tehbanz

Posts: 180   +10
rage seems like one of those games that should just have a native linux support.
but nooo
 

LNCPapa

Posts: 4,310   +567
TS Special Forces
I'm sure it will get Linux support soon enough - after all this is Carmack we are talking about and the game runs in OpenGL.
 

Burty117

Posts: 3,760   +1,626
What?! 64GB SSD's are a waste?! They're really not, seriously, they are almost the ultimate upgrade! Please explain??
 
G

Guest

Those minimum system requirements are funny.

I'm running the same specs on 64-bit win 7 with 6 gigs of RAM and Rage is playing like a slideshow.

I updated my ati drivers, applied amd's Rage performance patch, and set the game to the lowest resolution, and now it's running like a flipbook. Better, but still garbage.

Either someone re-released Crysis 2 or Bethesda should've at least tried their game before tossing it out.