Spiderman 3 System Requirements Too High
Kent_Diego
grey blotches during play. I have high end computer with X850 Pro 256MB
video card and Catalyst 7.4 drivers. I looked at system requirements and
X1300/7300 256MB or better were minimum supported video card. Even though
the X850 is slightly older, it is a much higher performing card.
What gives? A two year old card not supported for a main stream game? I hope
they issue a patch soon. Anyone got a fix?
TIA,
Kent
HockeyTownUSA
"Kent_Diego" <No...@no.way> wrote in message
news:vsMYh.200584$115....@newsfe10.phx...
First of all, how did you get PC game when it isn't available yet? And
secondly, it requires Shader Model 3.0 which the X850 does not have.
System requirements are:
CPU: Pentium 4 / AMD 2.8GHz
RAM: 1 GB (1.5GB for Vista)
OS: WinXP or Vista
HDD Space: 6GB
Video: DirectX 9 256MB, T&L, and Shader Model 3
Sound Card: DirectX 9
Drive: DVD-ROM 2x
HockeyTownUSA
"HockeyTownUSA" <ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mdudnRE_kZhfB67b...@comcast.com...
Go to www.systemrequirementslab.com and check out the requirements there,
and it will check out your PC with recommendations for upgrades.
Kent_Diego
>> Video: DirectX 9 256MB, T&L, and Shader Model 3
I missed the SM 3.0 requirement when I looked. What are they thinking?
Releasing a game only 20% of all gamers can play. That seems very bone
headed. I can just imagine the return line at the game store on May 5 full
of angry customers. A mainstream game like Spiderman should run on a much
lower end PC.
HockeyTownUSA
"Kent_Diego" <No...@no.way> wrote in message
Well, you will see more and more of this because of the ports from consoles
which more or less use an equivalent SM3.
Ham Pastrami
"Kent_Diego" <No...@no.way> wrote in message
> I just installed Spiderman 3 PC game. The screen is mostly all black with
> grey blotches during play.
Ah, the Doom 3 bug.
ronald....@gmail.com
"I can just imagine the return line at the game store on May 5 full
of angry customers"
Yep, I'm sure all those people with Intel Extreme graphics will be
lining up....oh wait a sec they should be used to this by now.
Expecting a Dec 2004 video card (which is really just an upclocked
X800 from May 2004) to play the latest games from close to mid-2007 is
just crazy. That's 3 years. 3 YEARS! Frankly I'm suprised more games
don't use SM3.
I too have an X800 video card and am currently playing C&C3 so I can
still play some recent games. Luckily I haven't run into any games
that require SM3 (and all the spiderman games sucked so I don't have
to worry there). It's possible I guess that someone could downgrade
the SM3 shaders to SM2 shaders for the game like they did with
Oblivion for people with older cards....or mabye 3danalyze could do
something with this game. (Haven't used 3danalyze for ages though so
can't say for sure).
or best bet is to either complain to the people who made the game to
release a patch for older video cards or GASP! return the game!
or....
Upgrade your video card.
Trimble Bracegirdle
2nd on PC dreadful .
3rd one ??
'THEY' never do Kirsten Dunst in the games ...bit o Spidery Sex n Luv be
nice between sorting
Baddies.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse
Paul Moloney
news:1177799439....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Expecting a Dec 2004 video card (which is really just an upclocked
> X800 from May 2004) to play the latest games from close to mid-2007 is
> just crazy. That's 3 years. 3 YEARS!
Sorry, but the original poster is absolutely right. Sure, of course it
shouldn't play with all bells and whistles, but he should be able to play it
at _some_ level. This is not a cutting edge first-person shooter a lá
"Crysis"; it's a console port of a mainstream movie tie-in kiddy game. It's
exactly the kind of game that non-techy users will be buying, the kind of
game stocked in supermarkets beside the sweets.
If Beenox, the developer of this port (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenox),
fold in the next year, and whine that it was due to piracy or the
second-hand game market, rather than an absolutely bone-headed decision to
design a mass-market game to be played only on cutting edge hardware, I hope
they get little sympathy.
--
-pm
"Have you anything to say. No? Then shut up. Lest you are a
woman in which case carry on - it's delightful."
HockeyTownUSA
"Paul Moloney" <paul_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1afud$ek5$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> <ronald....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1177799439....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Expecting a Dec 2004 video card (which is really just an upclocked
>> X800 from May 2004) to play the latest games from close to mid-2007 is
>> just crazy. That's 3 years. 3 YEARS!
>
> Sorry, but the original poster is absolutely right. Sure, of course it
> shouldn't play with all bells and whistles, but he should be able to play
> it at _some_ level. This is not a cutting edge first-person shooter a lá
> "Crysis"; it's a console port of a mainstream movie tie-in kiddy game.
> It's exactly the kind of game that non-techy users will be buying, the
> kind of game stocked in supermarkets beside the sweets.
>
> If Beenox, the developer of this port
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenox), fold in the next year, and whine
> that it was due to piracy or the second-hand game market, rather than an
> absolutely bone-headed decision to design a mass-market game to be played
> only on cutting edge hardware, I hope they get little sympathy.
>
> --
I doubt the PC market will break them. I'm sure consoles are about 80% of
their sales, so even mediocre sales for the PC, especially considering the
minimal time spent to port it, won't put them under. Unfortuantely this
won't lead to companines actually spending more time and money to do a
better port that could run on lesser system requirements with better PC
controls.
Either way, the only thing that will keep most PC gamers from being able to
play this game is Shader Model 3.0 support. But that is rectified easily
enough by buying an SM3 video card which are cheap these days. Many nVidia
6x00 and all ATI X1x00 cards are SM3 capable. If you don't have a P4 2.8GHz
or faster (or AMD equiv) CPU these days, you can't consider it a gaming PC.
A P4 2.8GHz CPU is three year old+ technology. Hell, dual-core is over a
year old now for mainstream.
Ham Pastrami
> If you don't have a P4 2.8GHz
> or faster (or AMD equiv) CPU these days, you can't consider it a gaming
PC.
I think people get the point that you can't run old hardware indefinitely,
but the statement above is patently false. I am still using a single-core
2.2ghz, and I've been able to run everything up to and including STALKER
without issue. I'm not sure how you could classify that as "not" a gaming
PC.
The only game that runs noticeably slow on this PC is Mark of Chaos, and the
reason I don't count it against this hardware is that judging from reviews I
don't think it actually matters if you have faster hardware. This is one of
those "special" games, the kind where the loading screen has a loading
screen. Just because a steaming pile of bloated code gets put on retail
shelves once in a while, that doesn't mean that the computer is too slow.
> A P4 2.8GHz CPU is three year old+ technology. Hell, dual-core is over a
> year old now for mainstream.
On the retail shelf, yes, which is different from the installed base. The
actual "mainstream" cpu is in the 1.5 to 2.5 ghz range. And before you
dismiss the mainstream as not being interested in games, I think it is worth
taking into consideration that WoW, which is the most popular PC game atm
(or is it of all time?), and which has never been accused of being a
"casual" game, has a cpu requirement of 800 mhz. Coincidence? I think
publishers should try selling to the remaining 3/4 of the PC market before
they complain about the tiny percentage of users who both 1)illegally
download and 2)can actually run those games.
Source data: http://pcpitstop.com/research/cpurange.asp
Paul Moloney
news:rNSdnYVEh-4u6aTb...@comcast.com...
> I doubt the PC market will break them. I'm sure consoles are about 80% of
> their sales
Incorrect:
http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Beenox
"Starting in 2002, it did ports from Microsoft Windows to Mac OS, then
gradually transitioned to porting exclusively from consoles to Windows".
All their current output are movie tie-in Windows ports.
> If you don't have a P4 2.8GHz or faster (or AMD equiv) CPU these days, you
> can't consider it a gaming PC.
Well, I'm just going to have to go home and tell my poor little PC, which
can play Oblivion, Stalker and Battlefield 1942 all at 1024x768 and higher,
that it ain't a gaming PC. I'd better pick up some tissues for it on the way
home.
> A P4 2.8GHz CPU is three year old+ technology. Hell, dual-core is over a
> year old now for mainstream.
No-one's arguing that the quality of a game should be less on an older PC
and those with new hardware should have a better experience, or that
companies shouldn't be pushing out new tech. What _is_ ridiculous is
creating a mainstream game that cannot be played on fairly recent PCs _at
all_.
> way, the only thing that will keep most PC gamers from being able to play
> this game is Shader Model 3.0 support. But that is rectified easily enough
> by buying an SM3 video card which are cheap these days.
And again, it's a ridiculous business model to expect customers, who bought
their expensive gaming rig brand new only 3 years ago, to be expected to
fork out more money for a new graphics card already to play - let me
emphasize for the umpteenth time - a mainstream, kiddy movie tie-in.
It's one thing for Crysoft to demand high specs from their customers to play
Crysis. It's another thing for the creators of the Windows port of the
no-doubt awe-inspiring "Shrek" to demand it.
And yet people still wonder why the PC gaming industry - apart from games
such as World of Warcraft, which as has been mentioned elsewhere, is capable
on running on fairly old hardware - is doing shit.
P.
--
-pm
"All men are brothers. Hence war."
ronald....@gmail.com
> "HockeyTownUSA" <m...@comcast.net> wrote in message
That's why consoles were created?
Paul Moloney
news:1178274150....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> That's why consoles were created?
If you think there's a sustainable PC games industry based on creating games
aimed solely at those who can afford a top-of-the-line upgrade every 3
years, fine, but the actual evidence of industry sales figures suggest
otherwise.
Also, I've love someone to explain how "Spiderman 3" could be ported to work
on the 7-year-old PlayStation 2, but can only me made to work on 3-year old
PCs. That is, an explanation not based on either laziness or stupidity.
--
-pm
"Suppose conventional wisdom to be a forest. I am chainsaw. You
are squirrels."
deco...@gmail.com
For those who complain, they shouldn't, afterall, it is not the only
game with high standards, what about, Splinter Cell Double agent, or
rainbow six vegas..... I have intel Dual core @ 1.87Ghz, 7300GS(Shader
v3) 1GB ram and Windows Vista....hope it works on me.... if it doesn't
i will have to upgrade
Kurga...@gmail.com
> For those who complain, they shouldn't, afterall, it is not the onlygamewith high standards, what about, Splinter Cell Double agent, or
> rainbow six vegas..... I have intel Dual core @ 1.87Ghz, 7300GS(Shader
> v3) 1GB ram and Windows Vista....hope it works on me.... if it doesn't
> i will have to upgrade
dude .. I have a 2.8GHz pentium 4, nvidia 7600GS 256MB and 2GB of ram
and the graphics are messed up on it bigtime. running windows vista
btw. I can't figure it out. All my other games play flawlessly.
Started Knights of the Old Republic II up and turned up everything ..
even antialiasing to 4x and anistropic to 4x as well and it didn't
break a sweat.
Spidey starts up but there's all these lines criss crossing
everywhere. I'm bettin it's a driver issue hopefully and new drivers
will solve the problem.
Walter Mitty
> Spidey starts up but there's all these lines criss crossing
> everywhere.
Spider Web?
jeremi...@yahoo.co.uk
> 'THEY' never do Kirsten Dunst in the games
Thank goodness. The game is ugly enough as it is.
jeremi...@yahoo.co.uk
> <ronald.phill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177799439....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Expecting a Dec 2004 video card (which is really just an upclocked
> > X800 from May 2004) to play the latest games from close to mid-2007 is
> > just crazy. That's 3 years. 3 YEARS!
>
> Sorry, but the original poster is absolutely right. Sure, of course it
> shouldn't play with all bells and whistles, but he should be able to play it
> at _some_ level. This is not a cutting edge first-person shooter a lá
> "Crysis"; it's a console port of a mainstream movie tie-in kiddy game. It's
> exactly the kind of game that non-techy users will be buying, the kind of
> game stocked in supermarkets beside the sweets.
>
> If Beenox, the developer of this port (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenox),
> fold in the next year, and whine that it was due to piracy or the
> second-hand game market, rather than an absolutely bone-headed decision to
> design a mass-market game to be played only on cutting edge hardware, I hope
> they get little sympathy.
>
Besides, the game looks *awful*!
ben_r...@hotmail.com
I don't have the same problems but on my pc the game is really slow. I
have set it to 800x600 and the lowest detail settings and now it's a
bit faster. I don't understand because up to now I have had no
problems with the newest games.
And I keep getting stuck in the tutorial part. When I get into the
room after the high jump I defeat the thugs and after that I'm trapped
in the room. No matter what I do the doors stay closed. Could this be
because of the high system requirements too?
Ben
jeremi...@yahoo.co.uk
> And I keep getting stuck in the tutorial part. When I get into the
> room after the high jump I defeat the thugs and after that I'm trapped
> in the room. No matter what I do the doors stay closed. Could this be
> because of the high system requirements too?
>
> Ben
Sounds more like a bug to me.
SAMF2000
Well kent welcome to the pc gaming world. First never go by minimum
specs. thats put there to say it will run but like crap.
Also that game needs a card with Shader model 3.0. Two year old
computers will never play the newest games well anyway. My Pentium 4
2.8 Ghtz with a 1600 PRO Card with 512 mb barely runs oblivion with
around 15-20 fps.bUT IT FINALLY Runs BF1942 With highest settings
great. :-)
I know I need a dual core system , but unless your willing to upgrade
your computer every xouple of years I would stick to console gaming.
jonatha...@gmail.com
markoal...@gmail.com
Kent_Diego je napisao/la:
In My Computer is like your mostly all black with grey blotches
during play ,
and my computer is P4 2,8 Ghz, Windows XP , ATI Radeon 9550 256MB, 512
MB RAM.
In Spider-man 3 readme is:
> Minimum System Requirements
- 3D hardware accelerator card required:
- 100% DirectX® 9.0c-compliant AGP/PCIe 256 MB onboard memory
hardware T&L-capable video card with Shader Model 3.0 support and the
latest drivers*
- English version of Microsoft® Windows® 2000/XP/Vista
- Pentium® 4 2.8 GHz or Athlon™ XP 2800+ or higher processor
- 1024 MB of RAM for Windows 2000/XP, 1536 MB of RAM for Windows
Vista™
- 6 GB of uncompressed hard disk space (plus 600 MB for the Windows
swap file)
- A 100% Windows 2000/XP/Vista-compatible computer system including:
- DirectX 9.0c (Included)
- 100% DirectX 9.0c-compliant true 16-bit sound card and drivers
- 100% Windows 2000/XP/Vista-compatible mouse, keyboard and
drivers
- 100% Windows 2000/XP/Vista-compatible 2x speed DVD-ROM drive and
drivers
* Supported Chipsets for Windows 2000/XP/Vista:
- NVIDIA® GeForce® 7300 GT 256 MB and better
- ATI® Radeon™ X1300 256 MB and better
jua...@gmail.com
just plain stupid. Raising the GPU minimum to a Geforce 7300 level
falls into the moronic category in no time. Now i remember why i hate
activision's games.
I have a Geforce 6600 GT (yeah, a 3yr-old-card-but-fairly-decent-card,
so what} which still runs mostly any game i get my hands on, that
happens to be just useless for Spidey. Major disappointment. Oh, wait,
it's the third time around. All the Spiderman games seem like they've
been pulled out from Activision's butt. Better luck next time. And
it's not only the lines or the incredibly poor frame rate, but the
menus and all the customization process is just annoying for this
game. Designed by a blind man on pot, the only decent thing this game
has seems to be the intro. The rest is all pain.
Yeah, i know i have to upgrade my GPU, but it's been crazy the past
couple of years. I'm one of the unlucky upgraders that got his hands
on a 939 Athlon 64 and some nice OCZ DDR 1, along with a fairly decent
PCI-express mobo, and got shocked 4 months later when they freaking
discontinued the whole 939 line and came up with the AM2 crap. So I
must upgrade right about every stupid thing in my pc. I'm gonna let it
die. It won't take long.
And i'm grabbing Intel next time. There goes my AMD loyalty.
I agree: Mainstream games shouldn't have such high specs and reqs.
Next time i must remind myself about staying away from the mainstream
crap. It's always disappointing.
Cheers.
Trimble
all cause
As the spec sais you must have shader 3 card...all the Radeon's 9xxx , 6xx
, 8xx do not have this.
Mouse
@@@
ali0...@gmail.com
Video Card
Minimum: 100% DirectX(R) 9.0c-compliant AGP/PCIe 256 MB onboard memory hardware T&L-capable video card with Shader Model 3.0 support and the latest drivers (NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT+ / ATI Radeon X1300+)
You Have: Mobile Intel(R) 965 Express Chipset Family
Upgrade Suggested: Unfortunately, your Video Card does not meet this requirement. Click here to see some recommendations.
Click here for the latest Video drivers.
Features: Minimum attributes of your Video Card
Required You Have
Video RAM 256 MB 448.0 MB
3D Yes Yes
Hardware T&L Yes Yes
Pixel Shader version 3.0 4.0
Vertex Shader version 3.0 4.0
plz help email ali0...@gmail.com
bilala...@gmail.com
which is above the requirements