13
votes
Remedy Entertainment has revealed the full system requirements to run its highly-anticipated sequel, Alan Wake II, on PC
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Alan Wake 2's PC specs are here - and they're as scary as the game itself
- Published
- Oct 21 2023
- Word count
- 269 words
So, I'm torn because it said the specs are scary in the article... But for low they want a six year old CPU and GPU - now, I'm still on a 1070 but I don't think expecting six year old hardware as a minimum is scary.
Everyone only plays 4k ultra with max ray tracing clearly.
I mean, the CPU requirements don't even change above low! It's purely A GPU bound game in that sense.
But, they go from a six year old GPU to the literal top of the line, which is fine and all, but they list different resolutions as well.
Frankly, I figure that they should use Steam's hardware survey numbers and say "Most people have X. With X, you're gonna get Y frames at 1080p/2160p." or something instead. I know the industry is going to build their games based off the latest and greatest stuff and Remedy has always been about style and storytelling (they make great games too.) But that chart was just... Hard to read? I dunno. I only make infographics part time, so I'm no expert.
You're right .. back in the day you didn't have Nvidia doing day 1 patches for their GPU Drivers for basically every single AA/AAA title released.
It's honestly crazy to me that the optimization has to come from the GPU manufacturer's end for every damn game.
So what are they? The article doesn't list them.
They don't list them, but they do link to the tweet by @alanwake which has them in an image:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F85erF6WcAAMlKY?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Thanks for taking the effort, but I was being (semi) facetious/rhetorical.
If you're writing an article on a gaming magazine as a gaming journalist, at least have the decency to do more than just link to a Twitter post. The link on Eurogamer didn't even open the image for me, but linked me to some vague Twitter thread so I had to figure it out myself. It's just exceptionally lazy journalism.
Meh. I never would have even known about Alan Wake II had they not reported on this. Lazy journalism for not transcribing the requirements, sure, a bit, but it's still useful.
I mean.. yeah? But the article's title is fairly straightforward: this is about the specs.
Not listing them seems like a failure to address your own topic.
If it were a general announcement of Alan Wake I'd be more inclined to agree with you.
They didn't need to list them though, since they linked to the official tweet (are they even still called tweets?) with the specs. I suppose linking to the tweet itself might have been better, since the article didn't exactly add much to the topic, but a lot of people are avoiding clicking
twitterX links these days, so then again, maybe not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯I don't want to live in a world where they are called 'Xeets,' happy to keep with the status quo on this one xD
I don't see why it shouldn't just be "posts" like anywhere else.
Unless you use/like Epic Games, you might not care to know. It's another Epic exclusive.
The minimum requirement for this game is a 6 year old midrange gpu, so I really don't see what the problem is here.
But we go through this every time developers transition to a new console generation. They treat consoles as a their performance floor, so we tend to get long stretches where minimum requirements for PC games are largely static, with huge jumps 1-2 years after new consoles drop. It took a little longer this time as ballooning development cycles and covid delays meant we didn't really start seeing "next gen" software until this year.
We can't stay with the 1080ti forever, unfortunately.
I think a six year old graphics card isn't a terrible ask for a brand new game. Not that it should be industry standard - I think 7-10 years is a good lifespan for a GPU, and you'd have to know that you'll slowly be adjusting the settings down from ultra to medium/low as the gpu becomes more outdated.
As such, I don't think some outlier games requiring 6 year upgrades are totally out of line.
Oh, I see. Sorry I misunderstood. I totally agree with you.
Graphics can be a selling point when paired with incredible gameplay. GTA, Red Dead Redemption, and Baldur's Gate understand this. Those are incredible games that also had/have mind-blowing graphics for their respective times.
Then you play a game like The Outer Wilds or Valhalla and you can see that graphics are a small piece of the puzzle. Those are incredible games where graphics just aren't the focus.
But the triviality of good graphics really shows when you're playing a nearly photorealistic game and you're bored out of your mind. Far Cry 5 comes to mind, a lot of the recent racing titles as well.
I'm interested on your perspective / input on what it was like to see the industry fall apart during the Atari era. Did a gradual level of contempt come into play / gamers were vocally unhappy? There presumably wasn't the same level of coverage of the industry back then vs now, but was there still news being reported on this / gaming magazines etc?
I'm playing through the Atari 50 collection currently and it's a great piece of media - almost like a documentary you can play through. Highly recommend it if you haven't already!
Consoles have driven us to this point, which is an important point to consider. This is really the first year we've had where the games have been "next gen" exclusives. If a game can hit 4k/60 on a 3 year old console, then expecting an equivalent out of the PC userbase isn't too much, IMO.
Also, Alan Wake 2 is potentially GOTY in terms of the contents of the game. Crafted with love.