Anyone looking forward to AC on PC? So far the reviews are on par with the console version with no major issues being reported with the PC version, and even confirmed reports of better performance with DX10. No other graphics goodies for high end gaming PC’s however, but we do get four new mission types.
I’ll probably hook up my xbox controller to my PC for this one. Sports games and third person plat formers/adventure games tend to play better with one, specially if they were designed with the controller in mind.
XBOX players, any tips, suggestions, things that must be done/seen, avoided?
Hmmm.
Even my bloody sound card isn’t good enough.
Supported OS: Windows® XP/Windows Vista® (only)
Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel® Pentium® D or AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core® 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better recommended)
System Memory: Windows XP: 1 GB RAM / Windows Vista: 2 GB RAM
Video Card: 256 MB DirectX® 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (see supported list)
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0 or 10.0–compliant sound card (5.1 sound card recommended)
DirectX Version: Direct X 9.0 (Windows XP) or 10.0 (Windows Vista) libraries
Hard Disk: 8 GB available hard disk space
Supported Peripherals: Keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360® Controller for Windows recommended)
Supported video cards at time of release: ATI® RADEON® X1600 /1650**– 1950/ HD 2000/3000 series, NVIDIA GeForce® 6800**/7/8/9 series. **PCI Express only supported. Laptop versions of these cards may work but are NOT supported. These chipsets are the only ones that will run this game. For the most up-to-date requirements, please visit the FAQ for this game at: http://support.ubi.com.
These are the final specs from steam. The 5.1 sound card is recommended not required. The dual core processor is also recommended, but benchmarks shows the game playable with one core too.
Not with an Athlon 2600+, though, I’m guessing.
That would depend on your GPU I guess. It might still be playable at low or low to mid settings. Check out the benchies here: Assassin's Creed im PCGH-Test: DX10 schneller als DX9 - aber nur mit minimalen Details - Bildergalerie, Bild 2
(German Site)
Edit: Yeah looking at those CPu benchmarks, looks like an AMd 2600+ isn’t going to cut it. Sucks.
Not enough RAM and not enough video card, unfortunately.
Still, it looks a lot less ridiculously resource-intensive now.
Well you’re not missing much man. Wow, am I underwhelmed, really just completely disappointed. My impressions after a few hours of game time:
What a boring game! It’s essentially an engine tech demo and little else. The free running, climbing, etc is fun for about the first 5 times, then it gets old as it’s completely simplistic.
The game play is repetitive, the cut scenes are excruciatingly long (I feel like I’m playing -read watching- Final Fantasy), and the story so far is not terrible but not very engaging or interesting either.
And what on earth were the devs thinking? Five, FIVE, F-I-V-E different actions and loading screens required to EXIT the gosh darn game?! FIVE for pity’s sake! First you exit your memory -load - then you exit your machine - wait - then you exit the ‘real world’ - load - then you log back into your profile - load - and THEN you can exit!
And no saving? Newsflash to developers: PC gamers do not like being told how long they have to play for. WE tell the game it’s enough, save, and quit, preferably via a single click and straight to the desktop!
I’m going to push through this game just because I don’t want to feel like I wasted $50, but man am I disappointed. Who are these reviewers giving this game 9.0’s???
The only redeeming quality is the graphics and the immersive environments, hence my description of this game as a tech demo and little else.
Aw, shucks. You didn’t have to…