I know whats witht he extra 3 gig requirment? It's on a 9 Gig DVD right now on 360.

Low res 1280x720 console textures FTL!!!!

High res 1920x1200 PC textures FTW!!!!

Is it impossible to compress data on a DVD then uncompress while running the game on the 360?

Such tiny requirements for my precious...

@ DangerMouse

That's exactly how the 360, and it's father the XBOX, work. Compressed on the disc, uncompressed on the fly.

Uh, actually the final updated assassins creed requirements are not that terrible. My friend runs it great on his mac book pro.

The finalized minimum processor requirements for Assassins' Creed are the same as Mass Effect recommended. In my mind, that's a pretty darn chunky requirement.

Also Macbook Pros cost $2K and up, it better be able to play new video games.

The processor requirements aren't even that high. You can buy a dual core processor Amd/Intel at dirt cheap prices if you know where to look.

exactly. The setup for console gaming is just >>>>>>>>>>>>> than pc gaming. I'll take relaxing in a soft chair over a hunched, cramped back any and every day.

And I'll take my $700 office chair over a couch which doesn't prop me up properly and hence gives me back pains. Also, dual screen 24" TFTs @ higher than 1080p > LCD TV.

I have my gaming rig hooked up to me TV. Works great. A 25$ laptop table from IKEA even makes the the keyboard and mouse comfortable to use on the coach.

If 360 games actually ran at 1080p, your argument would have merit. But time and time again, games have shown that this console generation just isn't powerful enough to pump out the new hottness at 1080p AND 60 FPS.

If you want true HD and 60 FPS, you're going to need a PC... which you can plug into your huge HD-TV.

Not that I care what other people prefer or do, your argument just annoys me. What you're saying is "I prefer big screens to little screens" except somehow you're making it sound like that means PCs are inferior.

UNLESS YOU HAVE A FUCKING VGA PORT which most hdtvs have. This argument is extremely flawed.

I really wanted to pick up 360 last summer, but i'm glad i held off since most of the games that i've been interested in have come or are coming to the PC, sans Halo 3 (but it's only a matter of time, i presume). For me anyway, Microsoft trying to bully there way through the PC gaming market may have backfired somewhat.

$2,000+ for slightly higher resolutions FTW!

You know you can hook up a PC to a TV, right?

Playing Crysis on my 60" Sony HDTV is pretty damn awesome.

"I hunted down one of the old darker workers" , thanks for the link, unrelated, but i'm going to use it for my African studies class, type it up on my pc that cant run mas effect

"most people"!?!?

Where the hell do you get that idea? Out of 6 of my closest friends, I have the 2nd-most capable computer... and I'm using an AGP X800 Pro video card.

"I hunted down one of the old darker workers" Cringe inducing.

Even if the author meant that as some kind of humor, it's still, just, eh, cringe inducing.

What an idiot. Did you write that? Please say no.

Computer Makers are destorying the PC game market. Since all their non "gaming" machines come with the most terrible 5 dollar graphics cards. And the "gaming" machines cost about 160% more than they should.

Sorry, but the HD2600 was never a really good videocard to begin with (at least for games). In fact, I would say that it's considered a low-end card -- even when it was released last year.

The problem is that current ATI cards simply suck for gaming at the moment.

Hate to tell you this, but i have AGP only, which means this is the best graphics card money can buy for my 5 year old system. How sad....my ps2 worked BETTER after 5 years....

Actually, it's not the best AGP card you could have bought. The ATI X1950 PRO is a lot faster than the HD2600. Sure, it's a DX9 card, but honestly, that HD2600 is far too weak to take advantage of DX10 anyway.

Rul of thumb: It's always better to buy a high-end last generation videocard than to waste money on a low-end "newer" generation card like the HD2600

and where were you when i was planning all this?

(where were you, when they built the stairway to heaven.....)

Liquid Ocelot,

Like others have said, the HD 2600 XT was never really that good of a videocard; I remember reading something to the effect that it had the same number of texture mapping units as a Radeon 9800 (the R300 architecture came about in 2003-2004). Essentially, it'd be a killer card if it were released a half decade ago. Most of the people that bought them did so for their HTPCs since the HD 2600's had UVD, something the HD 2900 XT didn't.

Now, if you still want to stay with AGP, you have two really good options (if you can find them). The first is the Radeon X1950 Pro; it's roughly on par with a Geforce 8600 GTS (a little slower or faster depending on the game). That particular one's pretty hard to find now since few ATI partners want to continue producing a 90 nm chip (everything's now 55 nm) and they tend to go out of stock quickly when they are available. The second option is a Radeon HD 3850 (yes, there's an AGP version). For AGP, it's an absolute screamer of a card.

Actually, the best AGP card on the market is the Radeon HD 3850, but that is approaching the $200 area, which is way too much for its performance.

Grimble Grumble,

While I agree with your price assessment, the cost of the AGP HD 3850 makes sense. There are very few ATI partners interested in continuing support for a slot standard that essentially died 4 years ago (NVIDIA or its partners don't bother making AGP products at all) and the actual market for AGP solutions is very slim; most of the people interested in buying discrete graphics solutions want new or newer technology and that usually means buying exclusively for the PCIe standard (unless you're trying to replace a very old videocard).

There's only one partner I can think of (don't remember the company's name) that actually makes AGP compatible HD 3850's and it's only making them in small numbers. The AGP X1950 Pro line is hard to find because no one wants to continue producing 90 nm chips when all of ATI's current products use 55 nm technology. Besides, is there any point to an AGP compatible HD 3850? Most people that have AGP equipped motherboards are using single core processors (or older dual core processors); their CPU would be so severely bottlenecking their system while playing a modern game that A) the HD 3850 would have difficulty outperforming the cheaper X1950 and B) the framerates would so low as to make the game downright unplayable.

12GB means the least amount of hard drive space you should have free prior to installation, not how much the game will take up. Crysis recommends 12GB of hard drive space, but takes up 7GB on your hard drive after installing.

I raised an eyebrow at the really high specs, but jesus, 12 gigs? Why do these console ports take up so much damn space? Didn't Tomb Raider: Anniversary (or Legends, forget which) take up like 9 gigs?

Recall that the games are ported straight from DVD9, and the PC version usually has more space-hogging baggage coming with it, from DRM watchdog programs to extra content to other things

Kahn hit it on the head. A good example of this is Orange Box for PC. That was two DVD9s. Orange Box on 360 is one disc.

Gears of War PC takes up 12 GB's. And it took an hour and a half to install. Granted, i'm running a p4 2.4 ghz, 768MB ram, ATI Radeon 9700.

Are you guys serious?

HDs are cheap as hell nowadays. I'll take even higher resolution textures and audio, thank you very much.

Dude, an OEM Seagate 500Gb 3Gb/sec 7200 RPM SATA HD is right at $100. If you're hurting for disc space, head to Newegg and throw a second drive in your box.

2500 geforces to render the ass alone

Hey now, my 9800XT was awesome and ran most games fine...until that PC blew up.

Bioshock ran perfectly fine on my three or four-year old PC (I forget exactly). It's not a question about being an XBox 360 port, it's a question of how far the developer is willing to go to implement some good scalability.