Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Alpha Protocol System Requirements

yes plz

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,159
Pathfinder: Wrath
Saw this over at Gamebanshee:

Intel CPU - Pentium 4 2.66GHz
AMD CPU - Athlon XP 2400+
Nvidia Graphics Card - Geforce 7900 GT
ATI & Intel Graphics Card - Radeon X1800 Series 256MB
RAM - 2 Gbs
Hard Disk Space - 12 Gbs
Direct X - 9

Either the game is well optimized or these are the 'well, at least you can see the intro' requirements. Knowing Obsidian's track record, I'm going with the latter.

http://gamebanshee.com/news/static/EkVE ... lUSHmF.php
 

TheWesDude

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
3,720
Location
Norfolk VA
those are pretty stiff reqs imo

that will probably make it playable with medium settings, if thats low settings, i sense something is wrong.
 

Deleted member 7219

Guest
catfood said:
Those seem kinda steep. At first I thought they were the recommended system reqs but then I remembered NWN 2.

Steep? Are you fucking kidding me? Who owns an XP 2400+ processor anymore? Those things are ancient. The graphics card is about three years old now too, considering the predecessor of the Geforce 7 series, the 6 series, struggled to run many games that came out in 2007 at high settings, I really doubt they'll be good for 2009. And if you've got less than 2GB of RAM you should have upgraded by now anyway, RAM is one of the most important things for computers these days.
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
Matt7895 said:
considering the predecessor of the Geforce 7 series, the 6 series, struggled to run many games that came out in 2007 at high settings, I really doubt they'll be good for 2009.

What 2009? Consoles got their videocards of 2005 updated or something?
Though knowing Obsidian it will be funny to watch all those console retards that paid for this piece of shit cry about how it lags on their xbawks, forgetting to mention that bugs are only for PC.
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
Wow, my 7900GT is finally minimum spec huh? I'd probably be pissed if I gave a shit about this game, but I don't. PC gaming is too expensive. You'd have to spend a few hundred dollars just to upgrade and play that. No thanks. Not for some most certainly shitty modern game with very little game-play and lots of superfluous graphical masturbation going on.

Ye No!
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,421
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I just bought a Geforce 9600 GT for a little more than 50 euros and it runs any 2009 game on full settings and maximum resolution, so "expensive" my ass.
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
JarlFrank said:
I just bought a Geforce 9600 GT for a little more than 50 euros and it runs any 2009 game on full settings and maximum resolution, so "expensive" my ass.

My RAM need to be updated too. It'd cost me probably $100 minimum to make it run. That's expensive for a single game.
 

DriacKin

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
2,588
Location
Inanescape
Xi said:
JarlFrank said:
I just bought a Geforce 9600 GT for a little more than 50 euros and it runs any 2009 game on full settings and maximum resolution, so "expensive" my ass.

My RAM need to be updated too. It'd cost me probably $100 minimum to make it run. That's expensive for a single game.
Well, you won't be doing it for just a single game.
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
Speaking about it - why the fuck does AP need 2GBs or RAM?
Both XBox360 and PS3 can provide only 256 MBs of RAM.
 

Black_Willow

Arcane
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
1,866,244
Location
Borderline
Xi said:
JarlFrank said:
I just bought a Geforce 9600 GT for a little more than 50 euros and it runs any 2009 game on full settings and maximum resolution, so "expensive" my ass.

My RAM need to be updated too. It'd cost me probably $100 minimum to make it run. That's expensive for a single game.
Dude, I paid about $35 for 2 GB of RAM (new, not used).
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
7,715
My computer is 5 years old or so, so the requirements are steep for me. I can't even run The Witcher.
 

FeelTheRads

Arcane
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
13,716
Hümmelgümpf said:
MetalCraze said:
Speaking about it - why the fuck does AP need 2GBs or RAM?
Both XBox360 and PS3 can provide only 256 MBs of RAM.
Yeah, but 360 and PS3 don't have a system hog like Windows running in the background.

Sure, Windows takes 1.7 GBs. :roll:

Make that "the game actually runs in an emulated environment instead of being 100% ported", it sounds way more reasonable.
 

baronjohn

Cipher
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,383
Location
USA
JarlFrank said:
I just bought a Geforce 9600 GT for a little more than 50 euros and it runs any 2009 game on full settings and maximum resolution, so "expensive" my ass.
I bet it doesn't run ArmA 2 or GTA 4.
 

Deleted member 7219

Guest
MetalCraze said:
Speaking about it - why the fuck does AP need 2GBs or RAM?
Both XBox360 and PS3 can provide only 256 MBs of RAM.

I think its because

a) The PC versions have better graphics

b) The console versions get their memory from their processing units.
 

fastpunk

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
1,798
Location
under the sun
Steam lists the following as system requirements for AP:

o Supported OS: Microsoft Windows XP® or Windows Vista®
o Processor: 2.4+ GHZ Intel® or 2.0+ GHZ AMD™
o Memory: 1 GB RAM (Windows XP®,) 2 GB RAM (Windows Vista®)
o Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce 6 series (6800GT or better,) ATI™ 1300XT series or greater (X1550, X1600 Pro and HD2400 are below minimum system requirements)
o Hard Drive: At least 12 GB of free space
o Sound Card: DirectX® 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers
o DirectX®: 9.0c

These seem reasonable. What the OP posted might be the recommended specs.
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
Matt7895 said:
a) The PC versions have better graphics
No it doesn't. It looks even worse than Mass Effect which was unchanged during porting. Even if it was the case it certainly wouldn't require 5+ times more RAM.

b) The console versions get their memory from their processing units.
What?

fastpunk said:
These seem reasonable. What the OP posted might be the recommended specs.
Yes but minimum specs != playable game.
Though I don't understand how X1300XT is OK but X1600Pro is not.

Hümmelgümpf said:
Yeah, but 360 and PS3 don't have a system hog like Windows running in the background.

You do know that Xbox consoles run on a modified version of Windows, right?
 

Wirdschowerdn

Ph.D. in World Saving
Patron
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
34,915
Location
Clogging the Multiverse with a Crowbar
MS and Sony have strict certification and test programs, if the game runs like shit they won't accept it and return it until it is fixed, so skyways ranting is completely baseless. In addition, AP is based on the UE3, which has been proved runs very smooth and stable on all consoles, and PC.
 

Hobo Elf

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
14,067
Location
Platypus Planet
Morgoth said:
MS and Sony have strict certification and test programs, if the game runs like shit they won't accept it and return it until it is fixed, so skyways ranting is completely baseless. In addition, AP is based on the UE3, which has been proved runs very smooth and stable on all consoles, and PC.

I laughed so hard I cried
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
Morgoth said:
MS and Sony have strict certification and test programs, if the game runs like shit they won't accept it and return it until it is fixed
Like they did it with f.e. Bully quite recently right that lagged and crashed so hard that IGN or Gamespot made an article about it? Or super smash hit Halo3 which runs at 1024x640 which is below the required standard because even with its shitty graphics it manages to trash its own exclusive platform. Or GoW which runs at 30 FPS (UE3 engine btw). QA on consoles is just as good as it is on any other platform.

In addition, AP is based on the UE3, which has been proved runs very smooth and stable on all consoles, and PC.
NWN2 was based on Aurora. NWN was running fine at PCs of its time. Obsidian managed to completely fuck it up even though NWN2 was fugly, they even made NWN's camera worse - though how it was possible. Engine doesn't mean shit if hands grow out of the ass.
And KotOR2... Ah KotOR2. Xbox version came out 3 months earlier than PC one and it tells about console QA all you need to know.
 

Wirdschowerdn

Ph.D. in World Saving
Patron
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
34,915
Location
Clogging the Multiverse with a Crowbar
*sigh* So much negativity.

First, not much of NWN2 was based on Aurora. The gameplay stuff yes, but the actual rendering engine was completely new written, and yes, fucked up. Shows us nothing though. AP is based on a licensed engine that runs with 30 fps on consoles, and that is okay. I remember playing Gears of War 2 with no hitches whatsoever. I think if the Kidzbox can handle Gears 2, it should be able to handle AP as well.
But then again, I don't give a fuck about the console versions. If you're a PC gamer, then upgrade or shut up.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom