EPTDragon Age - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
KawaiiRice
United States2914 Posts
| ||
|
cYaN
Norway3322 Posts
| ||
|
Shivaz
Canada1783 Posts
Core 2 Duo T5800 @ 2Ghz 4 GB ram Vista home 9600M GT If not I guess I may have to get this for my 360. | ||
|
IceCube
Croatia1403 Posts
On November 08 2009 03:12 Shivaz wrote: Thinking of picking this up, but anyone know if my laptop can run this on medium settings (Which will be better than the graphics on the 360 right?) @ 1680 x 945 the native screen resolution at a decent frame rate of 30 or higher? Core 2 Duo T5800 @ 2Ghz 4 GB ram Vista home 9600M GT If not I guess I may have to get this for my 360. Google is your friend.  + Show Spoiler + Windows XP Minimum Specifications OS: Windows XP with SP3 CPU: Intel Core 2 (or equivalent) running at 1.4Ghz or greater AMD X2 (or equivalent) running at 1.8Ghz or greater RAM: 1GB or more Video: ATI Radeon X850 128MB or greater NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128MB or greater DVD ROM (Physical copy) 20 GB HD space Windows Vista Minimum Specifications OS: Windows Vista with SP1 CPU: Intel Core 2 (or equivalent) running at 1.6Ghz or greater AMD X2 (or equivalent) running at 2.2GHZ or greater RAM: 1.5 GB or more Video: ATI Radeon X1550 256MB or greater NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB or greater DVD ROM (Physical copy) 20 GB HD space Recommended Specifications CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz Processor or equivalent RAM: 4 GB (Vista) or 2 GB (XP) Video: ATI 3850 512 MB or greater NVIDIA 8800GTS 512 MB or greater DVD ROM (Physical copy) 20 GB HD space | ||
|
Shivaz
Canada1783 Posts
On November 08 2009 03:39 IceCube wrote: Google is your friend. + Show Spoiler + Windows XP Minimum Specifications OS: Windows XP with SP3 CPU: Intel Core 2 (or equivalent) running at 1.4Ghz or greater AMD X2 (or equivalent) running at 1.8Ghz or greater RAM: 1GB or more Video: ATI Radeon X850 128MB or greater NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128MB or greater DVD ROM (Physical copy) 20 GB HD space Windows Vista Minimum Specifications OS: Windows Vista with SP1 CPU: Intel Core 2 (or equivalent) running at 1.6Ghz or greater AMD X2 (or equivalent) running at 2.2GHZ or greater RAM: 1.5 GB or more Video: ATI Radeon X1550 256MB or greater NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB or greater DVD ROM (Physical copy) 20 GB HD space Recommended Specifications CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz Processor or equivalent RAM: 4 GB (Vista) or 2 GB (XP) Video: ATI 3850 512 MB or greater NVIDIA 8800GTS 512 MB or greater DVD ROM (Physical copy) 20 GB HD space Yes I know that, I was looking for an answer from someone running the game on a laptop with similar specs. | ||
|
IceCube
Croatia1403 Posts
| ||
|
Klapdout
United States282 Posts
On November 08 2009 03:12 Shivaz wrote: Thinking of picking this up, but anyone know if my laptop can run this on medium settings (Which will be better than the graphics on the 360 right?) @ 1680 x 945 the native screen resolution at a decent frame rate of 30 or higher? Core 2 Duo T5800 @ 2Ghz 4 GB ram Vista home 9600M GT If not I guess I may have to get this for my 360. assuming the 9600m gt is about the same as a 9600 gt, you should be able to play medium/high Recommended: o OS: Windows XP (SP3) or Windows Vista (SP1) or Windows 7 o Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz or AMD Phenom II X2 Dual-Core 2.7 Ghz Processor or equivalent o Memory: 2 GB (3GB Vista and Windows 7) o Graphics: ATI 3850 512 MB or NVidia 8800GTS 512MB or greater o DirectX®: DirectX (November 2007) o Hard Drive: 20 GB HD space o Sound: Direct X Compatible Sound Card bioware lowered the recommended cpu just before release | ||
|
Boundz(DarKo)
5311 Posts
| ||
|
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
On November 08 2009 04:57 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: Uggh torrent so slow... 81.7%... can't wait to try this out. Don't be a douche, go out and buy it. | ||
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On November 08 2009 05:57 EAGER-beaver wrote: Don't be a douche, go out and buy it. I downloaded the game too. Going to buy it next week though. I would never buy a game I haven't tried first. That would just be stupid. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10618 Posts
But i encountered a bug? When defending Redcliff against the assault no more undeads come but nothing happens?... | ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On November 08 2009 03:39 IceCube wrote: Google is your friend. + Show Spoiler + Windows XP Minimum Specifications OS: Windows XP with SP3 CPU: Intel Core 2 (or equivalent) running at 1.4Ghz or greater AMD X2 (or equivalent) running at 1.8Ghz or greater RAM: 1GB or more Video: ATI Radeon X850 128MB or greater NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128MB or greater DVD ROM (Physical copy) 20 GB HD space Windows Vista Minimum Specifications OS: Windows Vista with SP1 CPU: Intel Core 2 (or equivalent) running at 1.6Ghz or greater AMD X2 (or equivalent) running at 2.2GHZ or greater RAM: 1.5 GB or more Video: ATI Radeon X1550 256MB or greater NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB or greater DVD ROM (Physical copy) 20 GB HD space Recommended Specifications CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz Processor or equivalent RAM: 4 GB (Vista) or 2 GB (XP) Video: ATI 3850 512 MB or greater NVIDIA 8800GTS 512 MB or greater DVD ROM (Physical copy) 20 GB HD space Actually system requirements released by developers are almost always not enough, however I think your computer will be fine, my friend has a 8600GT and runs everything on high with 40fps. I was planning to run this on my laptop with my 3470, I think you'll be fine with medium settings. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 08 2009 09:16 writer22816 wrote: Actually system requirements released by developers are almost always not enough, however I think your computer will be fine, my friend has a 8600GT and runs everything on high with 40fps. I was planning to run this on my laptop with my 3470, I think you'll be fine with medium settings. I was actually surprised at how well the game runs on less-than-optimal hardware. It's a nice change from the Aurora/Electron Engine, which was pretty poorly optimized. Supposedly people have had issues with memory leaks and load times slowly ramping up over several hours of play, but IMO if you're playing for that long, you should take a break anyway. Still, it seems like a pretty weird decision by Bioware to patch the game by making it easier before they fix the memory leak issues. | ||
|
Shivaz
Canada1783 Posts
| ||
|
AmorVincitOmnia
Kenya3846 Posts
On November 08 2009 07:21 Velr wrote: It's running like a charm But i encountered a bug? When defending Redcliff against the assault no more undeads come but nothing happens?... this happened to me too, one of the undead got stuck on the docks ;p | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On November 08 2009 09:19 TheYango wrote: I was actually surprised at how well the game runs on less-than-optimal hardware. It's a nice change from the Aurora/Electron Engine, which was pretty poorly optimized. Supposedly people have had issues with memory leaks and load times slowly ramping up over several hours of play, but IMO if you're playing for that long, you should take a break anyway. Still, it seems like a pretty weird decision by Bioware to patch the game by making it easier before they fix the memory leak issues. I didnt know there was a patch already :O * Fixed potential corruption of character statistics * Fixed portrait appearance sliders when importing a character from the downloadable * Character Creator Fixed import for preset face settings from the downloadable * Character Creator Made Easy difficulty easier * Slightly increased attack, defense, and damage scores for all party members at Normal difficulty * Fixed video issues when running on a very wide screen display, including ATI Eyefinity displays WTF. I guess ill just finish the game before I download any patches and then play it at >normal in the future :/ *edit* or maybe its possible to change the difficulty after you have started a campaign? | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 08 2009 10:21 DrainX wrote: *edit* or maybe its possible to change the difficulty after you have started a campaign? You can change the difficulty as you go, in particular changing it for particularly hard encounters (I know it works from my run-ins with the Revenants in the Brecilian Ruins. | ||
|
Milton Friedman
98 Posts
Let me say first of all that Dragon Age:Origins is a fantastic game in it's own right. However, the biggest problem for me is Bioware's claim that it is the spiritual successor to the Baldur's Gate series. While I do see elements from Baldur's Gate I believe it's still closer to Neverwinter Nights. To me the pinnacle of RPGs was reached with Baldur's Gate 2 + ToB, not only because of the quality of those games but because of the shift away from isometric to fully 3D graphics. Under the isometric perspective it is far easier to micromanage your party - it's a lot harder under 3D. I think this is part of the reason Neverwinter Nights focused so much more on the single character, with a henchman who you could assign simple orders like 'attack' or 'defend' instead of something like the exact spell. But without the party focus the game lost the depth and richness of using different class skills and abilities and as such lost the tactical element to battles - becoming a lot more like Diablo 2. Yes, it's possible to pause the game and assign commands to everyone but in the 3D view it can be hard to target the mages at the back of a huge room or indeed not be able to target them at all because they are behind too many other targets. What's more, switching to the "tactical view" to get the isometric feel still locks the camera on the player making it impossible to move around the map so you can actually target enemies with ease. Fortunately, it's not a frequent issue in the game. Also, Bioware watered down the class depth. Just compare the character creation screens for Dragon Age and Baldur's Gate 2. Then compare the spells available between the 2 games: Dragon Age forces you to go down a certain spell tree so you must take on spells that are rarely used so you can get something you want later on. This reduction in flexibility, as well as reduced number of spells, makes the battles less interesting. I can admit the skills available to fighters is now increased and there is incentive to go for something other than a few abilities (Greater Whirlwind is the staple in ToB) so in this respect maybe things are better. Especially with the stamina feature. And yet, the biggest gripe I have with the combat is the use of potions. Most battles come down to using a potion every so often - nothing wrong with this - expect that it doesn't affect the cooldown on when you can next cast spells. For example, in Baldur's Gate every action you make takes a turn and that includes using a potion. If you use it it means you can't attack again until the next turn arrives, thus making it a more strategic choice. Nothing like that in Dragon Age: in a sense it feels like I'm playing Diablo 2 or some MMORPG. And you can go through Baldur's Gate without using a single health potion by relying on excellent preparation beforehand and then executing a particular strategy at the start (usually the most crucial moment, otherwise things can get hectic). Maybe this is all I have to say for now. | ||
|
Substandard
Italy270 Posts
I agree with everything you stated. I do think that is a general problem with all "next gen" games. They are to simple and aimed at the mainstream market so that casual players can get into them easily. For any hardcore fan like any Baldurs Gate fan it just isn't enough. At least they gave you choices this time. Dragon Age is definitly a step forward from Mass Effect, yet it still plays more like ME than BG which makes the fights just to simple and repetitive imho. | ||
| ||
