Will This Run on Integrated Graphics? - Page 5

Carnage · 2012-07-29, 02:13 AM

Originally Posted by Patflute

The game better not be over like 6gb.

what data size on HDD? you bet it will be, most big games are these days and PS2 is huge... there was a tweet about a 7G load on to servers, that might just be general mechanic/model/steam data... textures are the normally the single biggest part of any game and they are normally client side information...
I would think it could be upwards of a 12G game...

Patflute · 2012-07-29, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Carnage

what data size on HDD? you bet it will be, most big games are these days and PS2 is huge... there was a tweet about a 7G load on to servers, that might just be general mechanic/model/steam data... textures are the normally the single biggest part of any game and they are normally client side information...
I would think it could be upwards of a 12G game...

I have like 397gb left on my HDD, I'm more concerned with monthly downloading cap, I have 80gb. I've used a lot though because I had to install a bunch of stuff for my new computer.

FINALCUT · 2012-07-29, 01:31 PM

I heard 8.8 GIG for the Beta, I just heard it somewhere but I don't remember where. It was a solid answer from an official source thru a grapevine but it is a good number.

Xeller · 2012-07-29, 05:48 PM

The Tech Test client was 8.8 gigs but it only has one continent and they were using a lot of low res textures to keep the client size down.

I expect beta client could be bigger, and I just assume the final game will at least be 15 gigs.

EDIT: This is hear-say, I was not in the tech test.

FINALCUT · 2012-07-29, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Xeller

The Tech Test client was 8.8 gigs but it only has one continent and they were using a lot of low res textures to keep the client size down.

I expect beta client could be bigger, and I just assume the final game will at least be 15 gigs.

EDIT: This is hear-say, I was not in the tech test.

Grapevine, Hearsay,Rumor,Innuendo. Can you really trust anything us New Conglomerate say.

Rbstr · 2012-07-29, 10:43 PM

On HD space: Modern games take a fair bit of space...BF3 is over 20gb.
PS2 has huge levels, it will surely hit 10 in release form.

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Your onboard set will work just fine on low settings most likely but it really depends on the engine and the build.

I really doubt that.

OnexBigxHebrew · 2012-07-29, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

I really doubt that.

I agree.

Reaction · 2012-07-29, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

On HD space: Modern games take a fair bit of space...BF3 is over 20gb.
PS2 has huge levels, it will surely hit 10 in release form.

I really doubt that.

i don't doubt it all depends on your setup, CPU and Mobo. As that video shows BF3 is a very demanding game/engine and it ran decent for top sgt.

Forgelight engine will not be even close to as demanding as the frostbite engine was.

We all know onboard graphics is not the way to go.. but the OP stated it was "until" he got his new card. It will likely be fine until his new card can be purchased.

Arcsilver · 2012-07-30, 11:03 AM

Just got email from smedley. My question was could i run PS2 on an i7-3610QM 6gb ram and gt 640m.

His response: "Should be good"

Woohoo!

Eyeklops · 2012-07-30, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Reaction

Forgelight engine will not be even close to as demanding as the frostbite engine was.

Why? Are shades of brown & tan harder to render than scenes with color in them?

Reaction · 2012-07-30, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

Why? Are shades of brown & tan harder to render than scenes with color in them?

because destruction elements are much more demanding on a game engine than one with much less. Also one engine is designed for free to play market (so even lower level PC's can run it) while the other is an expensive game where many people with monster rigs still to this day cannot get it to run properly and the game is almost a year old.

Eyeklops · 2012-07-30, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Reaction

because destruction elements are much more demanding on a game engine than one with much less. Also one engine is designed for free to play market (so even lower level PC's can run it) while the other is an expensive game where many people with monster rigs still to this day cannot get it to run properly and the game is almost a year old.

I could say that Forgelight is more demanding than Frostbite because it has to track and display 100+ more people on a 10x bigger map. How do you really know which is more demanding? Destruction, or tracking abnormal amounts of avatars? Your speculating. Also, just because PS2 is F2P doesn't have any bearing on how "demanding" the game engine is.

wasdie · 2012-07-30, 12:22 PM

Not on current gen integrated graphics. Maybe in a few years.

Masterr · 2012-07-30, 12:25 PM

HELL NO

OnexBigxHebrew · 2012-07-30, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

I could say that Forgelight is more demanding than Frostbite because it has to track and display 100+ more people on a 10x bigger map. How do you really know which is more demanding? Destruction, or tracking abnormal amounts of avatars? Your speculating. Also, just because PS2 is F2P doesn't have any bearing on how "demanding" the game engine is.

Sorry to tell you, but this game doesn't have textures, lighting, particle effects or animations anywhere near frostbite - not that its a bad thing. he game needs to be toned down to achieve its goals.

As for your point about map size and player count, those are almost exclusively CPU issues, not GPU. This is why MMO's are typically more CPU intensive and less GPU intensive than other games. Given that integrated graphics are linked right to the CPU, this only further diminishes this game's abiliy to run on them.

Bottom line, if you don't know something that well understood and simple, you should probably not attack others.