Force Unleashed gets ported to PC (Nov 3, 2009)!

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

I think it's safe to say that it will use Havoc.

yeah. i was just blindly hoping for some hardware based stuff.. ;_;

 

well, theres always the possibility that the notion that USE PC is just a console port is a ploy by LA used to surprise at the last minute in order to earn some measure of redemption for their recent acts of tomfoolery...

 

(actually, where *did* that notion come from?)

[Alexrd]

Official PC System Requirements:

 

PC Minimum System Requirements

 

* Operating System: Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista SP2. Windows 7

* CPU Processor: 2.4 GHz Dual Core Processor (Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon X2)

* Memory: 2 GB RAM

* Hard Disk Space: 23.8 GB + 1 GB Swap File

* Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card

* Video Card: 3D Hardware Accelerator Card Required – 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible 256 MB Video Memory with Shader 3.0 support

* Video Card (ATI): Radeon HD 2900

* Video Card (Nvidia): Geforce 8800

* Media Required: 8X DVD-ROM drive

* Windows XP/Vista compatible mouse and keyboard or Microsoft Xbox 360 Wired Controller

 

This product does not support Windows 95/98/ME/2000/NT.

 

Recommended System Requirements

 

* Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core 5200+

* 512 MB 3D Hardware Accelerator Card

* Video Card (ATI): Radeon HD 4870

* Video Card (Nvidia): Geforce 9800 GT

* Memory: 2 GB RAM

 

NOTICE: Some 3D accelerator cards with the chipset listed here may not be compatible with the 3D acceleration features utilized by Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. Please refer to your hardware manufacturer for 100% DirectX compatibility.

 

Supported Desktop Chipsets

 

* ATI RADEON HD 2900, 3850, 3870, 4850, 4870

* NVIDIA GEFORCE 8800, 9600, 9800, 260, 280

 

 

Source: Aspyr

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

Official PC System Requirements:

 

PC Minimum System Requirements

 

* Operating System: Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista SP2. Windows 7

* CPU Processor: 2.4 GHz Dual Core Processor (Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon X2)

* Memory: 2 GB RAM

* Hard Disk Space: 23.8 GB + 1 GB Swap File

* Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card

* Video Card: 3D Hardware Accelerator Card Required – 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible 256 MB Video Memory with Shader 3.0 support

* Video Card (ATI): Radeon HD 2900

* Video Card (Nvidia): Geforce 8800

* Media Required: 8X DVD-ROM drive

* Windows XP/Vista compatible mouse and keyboard or Microsoft Xbox 360 Wired Controller

 

This product does not support Windows 95/98/ME/2000/NT.

 

Recommended System Requirements

 

* Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core 5200+

* 512 MB 3D Hardware Accelerator Card

* Video Card (ATI): Radeon HD 4870

* Video Card (Nvidia): Geforce 9800 GT

* Memory: 2 GB RAM

 

NOTICE: Some 3D accelerator cards with the chipset listed here may not be compatible with the 3D acceleration features utilized by Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. Please refer to your hardware manufacturer for 100% DirectX compatibility.

 

Supported Desktop Chipsets

 

* ATI RADEON HD 2900, 3850, 3870, 4850, 4870

* NVIDIA GEFORCE 8800, 9600, 9800, 260, 280

 

 

Source: Aspyr

 

now there we go!

 

but now it seems that quite a few people may not be able to play this game for a while until they upgrade their systems. me included. ah well, at least it'll look good when i do get to play it.

 

whats up with that huge jump from the previous reqs? this is *way* beyond a console's power... do other console ports have crazy reqs like this?

 

 

for those who don't know, today's low end PCs are actually more powerful the "next gen" (surely "current gen" now?) consoles, and high end gaming PC's (approx. the minimum requirements for USE PC) are nigh incomparable in terms of power. the difference is that games for consoles are made (coded) specifically for consoles, and thats what makes them work well.

[SW01]

Should be able to run that alright...still, as JIGOS said, the recommended requirements, especially, do seem awfully high.

 

I'd love to see, when it's released, PC USE (on those recommended specs) against PS3 USE, just as a matter of interest.

[Alexrd]

Guess they (LucasArts) were right when they explained the reason why there was no PC version at the beginning.

[Jeff]

Guess they (LucasArts) were right when they explained the reason why there was no PC version at the beginning.

Yeah, I mean I dunno about a $3,000 rig like they said, but just imagine if this had been released for PC originally and these were the requirements. My laptop which is my main gaming machine doesn't meet them. :/

[Giant Graffiti]

Hard Disk Space: 23.8 GB

 

I can hardly convince myself to install a game that's 6 GB!

[Alexrd]

Yeah, I mean I dunno about a $3,000 rig like they said, but just imagine if this had been released for PC originally and these were the requirements. My laptop which is my main gaming machine doesn't meet them. :/

 

My laptop doesn't even meet the minimum requirements. Maybe my desktop does, but I still have my doubts about the graphic card.

[gstommylee]

My laptop doesn't even meet the minimum requirements. Maybe my desktop does, but I still have my doubts about the graphic card.

 

In my opinion requirements for games can be a tad misleading. Last pc game i bought was Ghostbusters the video game and that required a 512mb card and i was able to run it on a 256mb on low settings.

 

There a possibility that it could run on something lower than a nvidia 8800 as long as it meets the graphical freature requirements. My brother has my old graphics card x1900 all in wonder so i can't test that.

[Alexrd]

In my opinion requirements for games can be a tad misleading.

 

Of course you can play games with a system lower than the minimum requirements, but your gameplay experience will be nothing special.

[Kurgan]

Another un-optimized console port I take it?

 

Wow, those are like twice the specs I quoted. I imagined they would change,

but this much?

 

I'd almost be better off emulating the PS2 version of the game the way

my PC is right now!

 

* Memory: 2 GB RAM

* Hard Disk Space: 23.8 GB + 1 GB Swap File

 

Whoa... 2 Gigs of ram, just like Ghostbusters PC. I guess I will be investing in more

ram after all.

 

This product does not support Windows 95/98/ME/2000/NT.

 

That kills me... I am sick and frickin' tired of new games ONLY XP "and up."

You'd think the reason they need so much memory is BECAUSE of those bloated OSes

(oh well, cue anti-microsoft rant here).

 

Until there's a work-around, this game is going nowhere on my system, even WITH

a big ram order.

 

23.8 gigs + 1 gig swap file? Sheesh. Console companies make a fortune selling hard drives, huh?

Good thing I have a 500 gig removable drive just lying around.

 

I know that System reqs are not absolute.

 

Doom3 required a MINIMUM of 384 megs of ram (with 512 recommended).

My system has 256, and I was able to play the Demo just fine. Granted, it

took awhile to load levels (not as long as Unreal Tournament 2004) and

the action got a bit choppy if there were more than three enemies onscreen

at once, but otherwise it was quite playable. Initially I tried to play the game

back when it came out, and my system was loaded with crap (no reformat

in 2+ years will do that to you, even with win2k). After a fresh format it was playable.

 

But this, no way. I'll need to buy another 1.75 gigs of ram at least.

 

Screw the Xbox360 pad (I expected as much since it's a direct console port).

I have a PS2 gameport converter so I already have the capability. Unless you

need dual analog triggers, which I doubt since they have key+mouse support.

 

The thing is that for a game like JKA, about half the game is first person, so

mouse+keys works best there (unless you're a high flying action joystick user like

Vagabond or Lathain Valtiel), but for the third person stuff, a good gamepad will do.

 

 

I wasn't expecting to buy this game for full price opening week anyway, so I guess

I'll have to wait a bit longer...

 

PS: Looks like Amazon has shifted the ship date of the Mac version to Nov. 23rd (from Nov 4th).

[gstommylee]

Another un-optimized console port I take it?

 

Wow, those are like twice the specs I quoted. I imagined they would change,

but this much?

 

I'd almost be better off emulating the PS2 version of the game the way

my PC is right now!

 

 

 

Whoa... 2 Gigs of ram, just like Ghostbusters PC. I guess I will be investing in more

ram after all.

 

What kills me though is the lack of Windows 2000 support. I am sick and frickin'

tired of new games only supporting XP/Vista. You'd think there reason they need

so much ram is BECAUSE of those bloated OSes (oh well, cue anti-microsoft rant here).

 

Until there's a work-around, this game is going nowhere on my system, even WITH

a big ram order.

 

23.8 gigs + 1 gig swap file? Sheesh. Console companies make a fortune selling hard drives, huh?

Good thing I have a 500 gig removable drive just lying around.

 

I know that System reqs are not absolute.

 

Doom3 required a MINIMUM of 384 megs of ram (with 512 recommended).

My system has 256, and I was able to play the Demo just fine. Granted, it

took awhile to load levels (not as long as Unreal Tournament 2004) and

the action got a bit choppy if there were more than three enemies onscreen

at once, but otherwise it was quite playable. Initially I tried to play the game

back when it came out, and my system was loaded with crap (no reformat

in 2+ years will do that to you, even with win2k). After a fresh format it was playable.

 

But this, no way. I'll need to buy another 1.75 gigs of ram at least.

 

Screw the Xbox360 pad (I expected as much since it's a direct console port).

I have a PS2 gameport converter so I already have the capability. Unless you

need dual analog triggers, which I doubt since they have key+mouse support.

 

The thing is that for a game like JKA, about half the game is first person, so

mouse+keys works best there (unless you're a high flying action joystick user like

Vagabond or Lathain Valtiel), but for the third person stuff, a good gamepad will do.

 

 

I wasn't expecting to buy this game for full price opening week anyway, so I guess

I'll have to wait a bit longer...

 

PS: Looks like Amazon has shifted the ship date of the Mac version to Nov. 23rd (from Nov 4th).

 

TFU has psyhics engine and like ghostbusters it really needs the CPU and ram. I'm a bit surprised at the hard drive space requirements.

[Kurgan]

Lots of games have physics engines. I highly doubt it really

needs that much memory to render it.

 

Does the PS2 version lack the physics engine? Again, I suspect it's a case of them

just dumping the console version to the PC without much time spent tweaking it.

 

 

Better than nothing, but still. In practical terms this implies only people with new

PC's are going to be getting this game, that's assuming these reqs are accurate

without too much fudge factor.

[gstommylee]

Lots of games have physics engines. I highly doubt it really

needs that much memory to render it.

 

Does the PS2 version lack the physics engine? Again, I suspect it's a case of them

just dumping the console version to the PC without much time spent tweaking it.

 

 

Better than nothing, but still. In practical terms this implies only people with new

PC's are going to be getting this game, that's assuming these reqs are accurate

without too much fudge factor.

 

PS2 doesn't use the same psychics engine as the ps3/360

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

I can hardly convince myself to install a game that's 6 GB!

personally, i wouldnt mind 50gb games. i don't have an awesome rig or anything, but if i pay $3000 on a computer, i'd want the games to be really spectacular.

 

Of course you can play games with a system lower than the minimum requirements, but your gameplay experience will be nothing special.

 

that reminds me... when i first bought JA 4 years ago a made it run on an ancient 128mb RAM, integrated 8mb graphics card office thing.

 

then i got a then powerful ex rental pentium 4 and stuck in a 128mb GeForce FX5200 + extra RAM and it serves me well to this day. (manufactured on '02!). it runs games 2005/6 and less (JO, JA, BF, RC, KotOR to name a few) on medium settings quite well.

 

That kills me... I am sick and frickin' tired of new games ONLY XP "and up."

well, you know... ME is like, 9 years old....

 

 

What are specs to the most powerful computers you have access to, people?

(just to get a more specific sense of USE playability possibility)

 

The most powerful comp i currently have access to is my dad's media laptop.

OS: Vista SP2

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo T7250 @ 2Ghz

HDD: 250gb

RAM: 2gb

Graphics: Nvidia GeForce 8400M GS

 

Its made for watching movies and playing medium games.

It can of course play my older games really well.

The "highest" game ive played on it is Mass Effect at medium - low settings.

[SW01]

My computer:

 

OS: Vista SP1

CPU: AMD Phenom 9750 Quad-Core @ 2.4GHz

HDD: 1x288GB; 1x291GB

RAM: 4GB

Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4850

 

So, apart from memory, everything I have is probably just a bit below recommended specs...

 

It's supposed to be a gaming system - runs Empire: Total War on max settings beautifully, and of course all those nice older LA games!

[Zwier Zak]

So let's take a guess. I have GF 8500. You think it will run? I doubt it. Witch is kinnda sad because everything else is just like the recommended settings. ;/

[gstommylee]

So let's take a guess. I have GF 8500. You think it will run? I doubt it. Witch is kinnda sad because everything else is just like the recommended settings. ;/

 

In theory as long as it meets the other requirements like shader model 3.0 it should work fine. Like i said the minmial requirements to run the game so only what the developers think you'll need but there is room for fudging factors and you could get by with the GF 8500

[Zwier Zak]

In theory as long as it meets the other requirements like shader model 3.0 it should work fine. Like i said the minmial requirements to run the game so only what the developers think you'll need but there is room for fudging factors and you could get by with the GF 8500

 

I was thinking that two but developers sometimes set limits to what kind of cards can run the game. Then if the numbers don't add up. You're f*****

[gstommylee]

I was thinking that two but developers sometimes set limits to what kind of cards can run the game. Then if the numbers don't add up. You're f*****

 

i don't think they could actually do that. I ran ghostbusters for pc with a 265mb card where it required 512 for a while. Usually games can detect what the card features have if it meets the requirements that way.

[Kurgan]

personally, i wouldnt mind 50gb games.

i don't have an awesome rig or anything, but if i pay $3000 on a computer, i'd want the games

to be really spectacular.

 

Yeah, but high memory usage and space doesn't necessarily translate to "spectacular." It better

make good use of all that, is all I can say! Is this the type of game that will sit on our hard

drives and be played now and then (even after it is beaten) or is it going straight to the recycle

bin after 10 hours? It's hard to justify those kinds of upgrades when only a handful of decent

games require them (unless you're going to spend a lot of time on them).

 

that reminds me... when i first bought JA 4 years ago a made it run on an ancient 128mb RAM,

integrated 8mb graphics card office thing.

 

Impressive! Though it was "only" the Q3:TA engine, with some tweaked out features

you didn't have to use to play. Hard to believe JA is six years old... but it's still a great game!

And like it or not, it's the standard for what future Jedi games are measured by.

 

well, you know... ME is like, 9 years old....

 

Yeah, but nobody ever liked winME, especially for games. I bypassed it entirely based

on all the negative feedback from friends and people online. 2000pro was the first Windows

OS that officially didn't suck for the most part. It's still supported by most games, but a

few games are XP (and up) only... soon it will be Vista only, then Windows7 only. Why?

(other than profit) Since it takes more memory to run those OSes, I don't see the point,

unless I'm "forced" to use them for certain games.

 

It's one thing if they want to say "not supported" but it really works and it's just a CYA

thing, but locked out, entirely? Why should they? That's just greed.

 

Anyway, not to continue being a curmudgeon, but if new mid-range PC's are coming

pre-loaded with 2+ gigs of ram, that's cool. If not, how do they expect people to be able

to play this, especially with the economy being what it is?

 

Again, obviously they've attempted to milk the console audience for this game dry before

giving the PC its due, but still.

 

You don't need an ultra high end PC to watch movies (just the right media drive for the discs),

but you do need one for a select number of games. I suspect though that it's due to console

porting issues that these specs are so inflated, more than anything.

[Kurgan]

Looks I'll be out of town when the pc version comes out.

I guess I'll get to read the official reviews when I come back!

 

Hope you folks post your reviews on the forums for us to read!

[Kurgan]

And see that Amazon.com has revised the ship date for the PC version... to Nov 3rd, just

like the console versions (Mac version is still Nov 23rd).

 

Those dates are not always accurate, but interesting nonetheless.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

Yeah, but high memory usage and space doesn't necessarily translate to "spectacular."

more space = more room for [higher quality] textures, etc.

 

It better

make good use of all that, is all I can say! Is this the type of game that will sit on our hard

drives and be played now and then (even after it is beaten) or is it going straight to the recycle

bin after 10 hours? It's hard to justify those kinds of upgrades when only a handful of decent

games require them (unless you're going to spend a lot of time on them).

good point. but personally i intend to get an ultra gaming rig as soon as i am able to, regardless of USE. its been an aspiration of mine since i was 8.

 

Yeah, but nobody ever liked winME, especially for games. I bypassed it entirely based

on all the negative feedback from friends and people online. 2000pro was the first Windows

OS that officially didn't suck for the most part. It's still supported by most games, but a

few games are XP (and up) only... soon it will be Vista only, then Windows7 only. Why?

(other than profit) Since it takes more memory to run those OSes, I don't see the point,

unless I'm "forced" to use them for certain games.

My opinion: i think it's the roll of technology. if no one moved past an old OS, there would be no incentive to create new ones. If new ones aren't created, then there won't be a any new features, capabilities, etc. If that didn't happen, technology in general wouldn't be able to move past a certain point. since Windows owns such a huge percent of the OS market, it affects more people than any other OS (maybe even software) on earth. With new versions of windows, new capabilities are introduced, and with it, people are given the power to accomplish new things. if windows didn't move past windows 3 for example, the whole world wouldn't be able to do things we take for granted with XP today.

 

the abandoning of support for older OS's is just what pushes things along, and game support is simply a part of that.

 

basically, since OSes (windows) are the single most affecting bit of software for humans, if they didn't advance, we wouldn't advance. (technologically)

 

It's one thing if they want to say "not supported" but it really works and it's just a CYA

thing, but locked out, entirely? Why should they? That's just greed.

"CYA"?

 

Anyway, not to continue being a curmudgeon, but if new mid-range PC's are coming

pre-loaded with 2+ gigs of ram, that's cool. If not, how do they expect people to be able

to play this, especially with the economy being what it is?

I think it's more the graphics card and the CPU rather than the RAM. Most new PCs nowadays do actually come with 2+ gb of RAM.

 

I suspect though that it's due to console

porting issues that these specs are so inflated, more than anything.

I think so too, but i'm hoping we're wrong.

 

Looks I'll be out of town when the pc version comes out.

me too, but either way i think i'll only buy USE once i have access to a decent enough computer to run it. (or i might break down and force the poor laptop to play it... )

[Zwier Zak]

I don't think were gonna see it tomorrow. How bout you?