This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

COD ghosts wont install without 6gb of ram

#41DisastersaurusPosted 11/4/2013 5:06:11 PM
StormKMD posted...
Whatever happened to **** the graphics, I play games for gameplay?



We all play games for the gameplay, but the topic of the thread is the game's disproportionately high hardware demands, which is a GRAPHICAL concern

Quit using logical fallacies.
---
hella butts
#42DV8ingSourcesPosted 11/4/2013 5:07:34 PM
Orestes417 posted...
Yes it's an improvement, but the benefit is trivial compared to contemporary games that do far better with far less.


Its not using anywhere near the 6GB of ram so what do you mean by that? Clearly the restriction is silly although I'm curious to see if it does in fact use more than 2GB.

Also the benefit isn't really trivial for everyone. I personally enjoy super clear texture work way more than most other effects that are crammed in games these days.

I will save my judgement for after I complete the campaign. I will be sure to monitor ram usage throughout SP and MP. If it uses less than 3GB that minimum requirement needs to be changed.
---
2500k @ 4.4 | P8Z68-V Pro | H80 | 8GB | 670 | 256 ssd | 6Tb hdd | Win 8 64bit | ax1200w | BD burner | cm690II
Steam: DV8ing1
#43Orestes417Posted 11/4/2013 5:08:09 PM
StormKMD posted...
Whatever happened to **** the graphics, I play games for gameplay?


One has to be able to you know, install the game, before they can play for the gameplay and the graphics are pretty much the sole justification for the requirements. They've pretty much eliminated over half the steam hardware survey from their potential customer base
---
I am the mighty thesaurus! RAWR!
#44MangorushXIIIPosted 11/4/2013 5:08:27 PM
steveboblarry posted...
MangorushXIII posted...
Lol, PC gamers...


But your a PC gamer oh?


You're*
#45DisastersaurusPosted 11/4/2013 5:08:28 PM
DV8ingSources posted...
Orestes417 posted...
Yes it's an improvement, but the benefit is trivial compared to contemporary games that do far better with far less.


Its not using anywhere near the 6GB of ram so what do you mean by that? Clearly the restriction is silly although I'm curious to see if it does in fact use more than 2GB.

Also the benefit isn't really trivial for everyone. I personally enjoy super clear texture work way more than most other effects that are crammed in games these days.

I will save my judgement for after I complete the campaign. I will be sure to monitor ram usage throughout SP and MP. If it uses less than 3GB that minimum requirement needs to be changed.



The textures aren't clear, though. They're overly sharp, borderline jagged, because they're ridiculously high-res without proportionately good lighting and shadow effects to soften them.

The result is garish, imo
---
hella butts
#46StormKMDPosted 11/4/2013 5:12:43 PM
Oh yeah, sorry guys. I completely forgot about what the topic was about because everyone's arguing about the graphics. And how is that a logical fallacy?

"Whatever happened to **** the graphics, I play games for gameplay?"

That's what a gamer is. We play games for the fun of it, correct? For the story? Hell, I can go play SMB1 and enjoy it right now. Graphics? Pfft. Who cares?

But I totally understand what you mean when you say that you can't even start the game. That's ridiculous.
---
MSI 660 GeForce 2GB | i5 3570K | AsRock Z77 Pro3 | Seagate Barracuda 500GB | Ballistix 8GB | Corsair CX430
#47therickmu25Posted 11/4/2013 5:18:25 PM
StormKMD posted...
Oh yeah, sorry guys. I completely forgot about what the topic was about because everyone's arguing about the graphics. And how is that a logical fallacy?

"Whatever happened to **** the graphics, I play games for gameplay?"

That's what a gamer is. We play games for the fun of it, correct? For the story? Hell, I can go play SMB1 and enjoy it right now. Graphics? Pfft. Who cares?

But I totally understand what you mean when you say that you can't even start the game. That's ridiculous.


If you had the option between a super model and an ugly girl and they were both equally cool and 'played' the same in bed, I would hope you really wanted that supermodel. Of course graphics being the girl and her skills in bed being the gameplay. I'm gonna go to bed now.
---
Games List: http://i.imgur.com/n5R72Cl.jpg
PC Setup: http://i.imgur.com/fUPqE7N.jpg
#48DV8ingSourcesPosted 11/4/2013 5:18:34 PM
StormKMD posted...
But I totally understand what you mean when you say that you can't even start the game. That's ridiculous.


And that is the point of this topic. I think we can all agree its absolutely unnecessary and a horrible idea unless it seriously is using over 3GB of ram which is unlikely.
---
2500k @ 4.4 | P8Z68-V Pro | H80 | 8GB | 670 | 256 ssd | 6Tb hdd | Win 8 64bit | ax1200w | BD burner | cm690II
Steam: DV8ing1
#49EternalNetherPosted 11/4/2013 5:19:40 PM
I love how off topic the morons are getting.

For a game that requires 6GB of RAM just to run, yes, the game is ugly. It doesn't even look as good as Battlefield 4 and Witcher 2. Both of which require far less. The graphics in Ghosts are a half decent improvement over previous gen CoD at best, and considering this is CoD, the odds of us getting a major graphical revamp anytime in the next decade after this are extremely slim. The series has fallen so far behind.
---
3DS Friend Code: 0619-3902-4035 Pokemon White Friend Code:0433-9592-2992
Steam ID/PSN ID: Solirus
#50Orestes417Posted 11/4/2013 5:24:56 PM
And if it is seriously eating over 3 GB of ram I'd like to know what it's using it on, because from appearances I'm not seeing the quantum leap over BO2.
---
I am the mighty thesaurus! RAWR!