i'm personnaly amazed by the 20 GB requierment ^^

wow for the game that looks much worse than first Mass Effect it have quite specs. well i'm not interested in this game to begin with so i don't care. i will have my time with Mass Effect 1 & 2 and Fallout 3 if we're talking bout wrpgs.

me too.

And thats without the inevitable updates too...

still, not as bad as Age of Conan lol. wasn't that about 40GB?

That's insane. I can play Crysis on high but it seems Dragon Age is even heavier.

This is why PC gaming is dead.

What's this? Another game that recommends a quad core? I remember people telling me as early as October last year (when i was building my computer) that a quad was a waste for gaming, and to buy a dual core instead. Glad I didn't listen.

Kinda sad that my $50 8800gs 384mb doesn't quite meet the recommend specs. Maybe I should have spent more on my video card.

Although the Recommended specs are high, the minimum specs are certainly very low and enough to allow alot more people to enjoy the game where it truly matters: the Role-playing systems, combat, depth, writing, etc... Graphics is the least concern of PC gamers.

Generally you can forget about the minimum specs.

Most of the time you need the recommended specs to run the game at a decent framerate without the game looking like shit. To get the best out of the game you probably need a PC twice as powerful as the recommended specs.

Not true at all. On minimum requirements most PC games are atleast as good as the best looking games of last gen, so that's certainly not bad looking.And the vast majority of PC gamers don't really care that much about graphics but care much more about the gameplay, which is why there's now over 300 millions PC gamers around the world.

That really depends on the game. The minimum system requirements are necessary to RUN the game. For most games that means it will run like shit.

Also, most multiplatform PC games fail to sell much more than a couple of 100k. PC gaming is dead compared to the 90s.

Umm... Not exactly. It's more like minimum requirements being the minimum for being able to play the game on the lowest setting, a low resolution, and at a decent framerate. This would have much lower minimums if it was only for being able to run the game. I'm sure there are lots of graphics cards that are less powerful but have the same features. The same goes for CPUs.

That said, the lowest setting look rarely good. Sometimes they're almost unbearable. Crysis, for example, looks terrible on the lowest settings due to the fact that there are no shadows; the game simply needs them to look any good. But it will most definintely run on a PC that meets the minimum requirements.

Anyway, back on topic. Crysis-like minimum requirements 1.5 years after the release of Crysis is not bad. Anyone that has been gaming on PC within a year, maybe two, should be able to run this pretty easily. Of course even an older PC will work, as long as it was a powerful one back then. All in all, rather low minimum requirements. Recommended requirements are a different case, though.