RO1? It's UE 2.5, so nothing special. RO2? I'm not sure, but I have a 560Ti and run it at pretty much full settings with no issues. Most of the performance stuff has been fixed but you will want at least a decent CPU, most of the issues are tied to that rather than GPU. My Phenom X3 720 can handle it now, but choked badly during beta.
Both are dead as fuck, sadly, unless you're OK with playing on servers in the middle of Siberia. RO because RO2 stole its community, and RO2 because it pissed that community off by thumbing its nose at them and paying fanservice to mainstream shooters. If you want to hear the whole sorry affair, hit me up on Steam, since this thread isn't the place for my furious ranting about that.
Last edited by rossmum; March 7th, 2012 at 11:57 PM.
My favourite games are the ones that suck you in with well developed visuals, audio, and lore. Obviously, good gameplay is a must. For a realistic game, all of these facets must be nailed, or it will suck. There are no two ways around it. For a non-realism oriented game, they all have to be on par with each other, but not necessarily realistic. Good gameplay is still required.
The problem with sci-fi is that it is inherently realism based. That's the "science" part of "science fiction." If there is no realism, it is fantasy (that's right, fantasy doesn't have to be a Tolkien wannabe to be fantasy!). That means we can now criticize a sci-fi game for realism, because it comes with the territory. Of course, there is always a line at which you say "it's a game," but there is also a line where you should say "oh come on."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks