Is anyone else just refreshing this page, eager to see what comments people come up with?

Geeze, you'd think it was on blu-ray or something.

16? wtf????

Looking at videos of this game I'm really confused as to how a 6600 and half a gig of ram could run it.

Oh well though, I should be able to play it on high settings at least then.

3.0 Ghz pentium 4 is likely minimum specs for people with a single core processor. duel and up should be fine.

geez! i cant imagine trying to play this on a 6600gt...

they are low balling with these requirements. I would suggest a dual core and an 8800gt. which is all still 2-3 yea old system.

Low specs :) For all the people wondering. If you have a 2.6 dual core, that's 5.2ghz overall. Now for quads you just times by 4. But! Most games won't use more than 2 cores. But you will still be swimming if you have a 2.1 quad. Cause you will still use 4.2 atleast :)

Whoa, those requirements are pretty damn low. They remind me of CoD4's lowest expected system specs. Although, 16 Gb is bit higher than I foresaw...

What's with games taking so much disk space?

processor hog a bit much?

this is why i no longer game on pc's, the hardware evolves to fast . and because every year a game comes out that needs higher pc specs.
i know its cool to push tech to the limit and all. but come on.

console gaming is so much cheaper and just as fun. i dont see why some pc gamers hate consoles so much.

@fetusmilk,

Did you even read the specs? It's not much more then Modern Warfare 1 is. Don't blow it out of proportion, geez.

I have a feeling a lot of people that have no idea what they're even looking at just assumed this is a big deal.

Same specs as the last game, since it's the same engine. Not that it matters, since nobody is getting this for PC.

I'm not going to lie when I say that the PC games try way too damn hard to push hardware and that console gaming is generally cheaper. But until consoles allow player modding among other things, PC gaming is still better.

That said, I'm mostly a console gamer myself at the moment. Once I'm out of college and have time and money to put into my PC, yeah, I'll play my PC a hell of a lot more.

Um, guys, you do realize that a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo is FAR faster than a 3Ghz Pentium 4, right? Case in point, the other processor listed, the AMD 64 3200+, runs at only 2Ghz. Saying "3Ghz" as a requirement doesn't really mean much, which is why they usually give a processor model.

The processor requirements for this game are actually REALLY low. Sure, your 5-year-old underpowered laptop might not be able to run it, but any decent PC gaming rig within the last 3 years should be able to meet those specs.

As far as the 12GB of space requirement is concerned, there is no real surprise there either. Textures take up a lot of space. Given that the PC version probably uses higher-resolution textures than the console versions, a larger install is expected.

what i said had nothing to do with the specs for this game directly. just in general.
im not just talking about cpu speed, all these new physics cards a grfx cards every few months that now only handle some special rending thing or what ever.

either way its still the same reason i got out of pc gaming like i said, its the constant upgrades needed just to play a new game.

where my consoles dont need constant upgrading every year along with its games. the games get better with the same hardware.

...and this is the reason I love the easy and simplicity of console gaming.

@fetusmilk
See know you're spouting random stuff you have a minimal grasp of knowledge on. It's not "constant upgrading". Just because a manufacture releases a new part doesn't make your parts stop working. Have you ever looked at benchmarks? Most times the difference in a new card is minimal or it's just a rebranding. It's not like it's a sudden fall off for when you can't run games unlike consoles. You'll gradually have to lower the graphic options around 3 years and it's up to you if you want to continue playing on low-medium or upgrade which in some cases may just be a cheap video card upgrade.

You only really have to tweak settings if your system is really low end. These days even a mid range pc will run the majority of games full throttle. My pc is almost 2 years old, definitely wasn't top of the line when I built it, and runs anything. The only game I had to adjust was Batman, and it was physx which is a huge hog.

PC's only get complicated in two cases, when shit goes wrong, and when you have a super low spec system. It's not for everyone but it really isn't rocket science unless you really want go crazy and overclock crap.

first im not wrong. i didnt assume you HAVE to upgrade every year. because you dont have to and its your choice anyway.

i dont know where you keep getting it in your head that im saying you are being forced to upgrade ALL the time. but if you want your newer games to look good then you might have to.
also you assumed i dont know anything about computers and youre wrong. which is why your a dick. because you started an argument based on something you dont know about me.

either way ,what im trying to point out, because you cant seem to grasp what im talking about. is my gaming experience shouldnt suffer because my hardware does. which is why i play on consoles.

i shouldnt have to settle with lower resolutions or lighting because my hardware is obsolete. i may not have to upgrade every year but if a game comes out that i would want to play on my pc(even though i dont anymore because i like consoles more) that requires a better grfx card or a faster proc then i would have to upgrade..

i dont game on pc's anymore because of this. i know your all high and mighty because you know more about pc hardware then me, but guess what, i dont give a shit. play your games with lower resolutions and and poor shadow textures and low lighting effects (until you upgrade when you WANT to). because i dont have to worry about it on my console.

and my point is its easier to play on consoles because i dont have to upgrade my pc to play a new game, because my pc couldnt handle it.
by the way i use a laptop. it has an on board grfx chip with shared memory, which i chose because i knew i wasnt going to be playing games on my laptop.

either way i wasnt trying to get in a pissing contest with anyone.
i was trying to point out its easier to game on consoles because they dont have system requirements.

@runtheplacered my first reply was to you yes but the next one i was calling clarke a dick, sorry for any confusion. i should have put an @
we just got into a argument for nothing! ha!

Oh, and 16GB isn't that much these days, either. I mean, hell, I have 2TB of storage on my PC, and that wasn't too expensive at all.

It's probably too late but...

@fetusmilk

You said, and I quote "where my consoles dont need constant upgrading every year along with its games. the games get better with the same hardware."

I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret the phrase "NEED CONSTANT UPGRADING EVERY YEAR".

Lowering graphics options isn't that drastic. I play my games at 1680 x 1050. That's a way higher resolution than Xbox 360 and PS3. I willing to bet I could still play games in later years with medium graphics at 1280 x 768 which will be better or as good as a console game.

Also the comment about not upgrading consoles, how's Halo 3 on the first Xbox working out for you?

"I can believe a game like dragon age origins being 20gb but a fps that has a short campaign....."

RPG have a lot of sounds, and MW2 probably have just huge textures. Size is nothing to do with the length of the campaign.

just curious. how many times have you guys had to get any kind of new hardware because something came out that you wanted to play and your hardware wasnt quite up to the quality or specs you would like? yes it could play the game but at the lowest settings and it just wasnt worth paying it like that.