›

Jurassic Park on PC

Baby RaptorBaby Raptor
edited November 2011 in Jurassic Park
This question is probably best suited for the makers of this game who have tested this game on PC platforms.

I know the published minimums for PC are:

OS: XP Service Pack 3 / Vista / Windows 7
Processor: 1.8 GHz Pentium 4 or equivalent
Memory: 2 GB RAM
Hard Disk Space: 2 GB Space Free
Video Card: ATI or NVidia card w/ 256 MB RAM
DirectX®: Direct X 9.0c
Sound: Direct X 8.1 sound device


I have Windows 7, 2.8GHz AMD processors, 3 GB RAM. ATI card w/ 256 RAM. I am above the minimums by 1 GHz more processor speed and 1GB more memory RAM.

Just how well would this game run, in frames per second (FPS rate), with the published minimums on a computer?

I ask this because I remember when I had Microsoft Flight Simulator X, and their minimums were:

Windows 7
Computer processor 1.0 gigahertz (GHz)
512 MB RAM for Windows 7
Hard disk space 14 gigabytes (GB) available hard disk space
Video card 32 MB DirectX 9-compatible video card

However, if you tried to run that game with those minimums, you had extremely choppy gameplay (very low fps rate). With the computer I have, it was still not a smooth gameplay (with 2.8Ghz and 3GB memory), unless you sacrificed graphics quality by turning those sliders from 'dense scenery' to a lower setting.


The reason I'm asking this question is I'd like to see if I should buy the PC version or stick with the PS3 version. With all the goodies offered in the pre-order PC game, I'd like to buy PC, but it's not worth sacrificing gameplay experience.

So with the published minimums, or a little better at 2.8Ghz and 3GB RAM, and Nvidid 256mb video card, would this game run without chop associated with low frame rates per second?


Thank you!!!!!

Comments

  • JPFixJPFix
    edited November 2011
    system reqs of this game should be added to this site, because i find it really usefull

    systemrequirementslab.com/amd/1170
  • keeperxiiikeeperxiii
    edited November 2011
    We can only know the framerate when the game or a demo is released. Anyway, I can tell you this:

    If there's an option in the game to turn off shaders, or if they turn off automatically when you lower the graphics settings (like in previous TT games) then you probably won't have a problem playing the game smoothly (Flight Simulator X is probably a badly optimized game anyway).

    If you don't know what the shader effects are, they're the shadows and realistic 3d surfaces that you usually see in character models and scenery (walls with bumps, etc). They're pretty demanding, specially on some weaker, low-end graphic cards.

    Don't think about it too much, it will probably be fine.

    EDIT: You should also check of the game requires a graphic card with shader model 2.0 or 3.0 and if yours supports it(it's probably 2.0 for this game so no worries). What's your graphic card?

    And the game will still look good. I say, go for PC and have fun, it'll probably be fine.
  • nanotyranonanotyrano
    edited November 2011
    I had a REALLY bad CPU once and I downloaded the Sam & Max demo and it ran perfectly.
  • shamuboyshamuboy
    edited November 2011
    Yes. FSX was used on a very bad engine and used to much of the CPU and the GPU which pretty much killed gameplay no matter what powerful machine you had. That's why they are working on a new Flight Simulator game just called. "Flight". In my opinion with how Telltale games work and the engine they use... you should have no problem running it at a good 30 fps. :)
  • Baby RaptorBaby Raptor
    edited November 2011
    I have Windows 7, 2.8GHz AMD processors, 3 GB RAM. ATI card w/ 256 RAM. I am above the minimums by 1 GHz more processor speed and 1GB more memory RAM.

    Quick update. Completed Episode 1 (LOVED it).

    The game's default for graphic settings is at the highest. With the machine above, the regular scenes were ok, but once movement based scenes occurred (Dilophosaur scene for example), the play became very choppy to the point you couldn't even see the quick-time arrows to respond in time.

    Biggest improvement I saw was turning the graphics slide from "Highest" down one notch to "High." That INSTANTLY increased my frame-rate, without too much loss of quality.

    I tried to turn "anti-aliasing" off , but kept it on since it didn't make too much difference on frame rate. I don't even know what aliasing is.

    I can't imagine someone trying to run this game on just the barebone minimums as stated on the box. You'd have to really turn down the graphic options to get a good framerate.

    Anyway, enjoy!
  • keeperxiiikeeperxiii
    edited November 2011
    Baby Raptor wrote: »
    Quick update. Completed Episode 1 (LOVED it).

    The game's default for graphic settings is at the highest. With the machine above, the regular scenes were ok, but once movement based scenes occurred (Dilophosaur scene for example), the play became very choppy to the point you couldn't even see the quick-time arrows to respond in time.

    Biggest improvement I saw was turning the graphics slide from "Highest" down one notch to "High." That INSTANTLY increased my frame-rate, without too much loss of quality.

    I tried to turn "anti-aliasing" off , but kept it on since it didn't make too much difference on frame rate. I don't even know what aliasing is.

    I can't imagine someone trying to run this game on just the barebone minimums as stated on the box. You'd have to really turn down the graphic options to get a good framerate.

    Anyway, enjoy!

    Aliasing is what makes the edges of a model seem smooth instead of having jagged lines. It's very demanding on lower-end cards.

    And I imagine that the minimum settings are pretty much like BTTF, where it just turned off the shaders and a bit of lighting here and there. In BTTF things still looked good. And, who knows, maybe JP looks better without shaders :D. I don't like the shader abuse.

    I've rather have higher textures resolutions for the game than shader abuse. I think it would look much nicer but oh, well. Nice textures > shaders.
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited November 2011
    Processor speed is normally not the decisive factor in Telltale's games. Your graphics card is decent, and most importantly, you've got enough RAM. There's really no need for you to worry. I exceed all minimum requirements, but there are still some lags in some scenes, but I gather that whatever PC you'll use they'll be there. But generally speaking, go ahead, you're good!
  • gamingafter40gamingafter40
    edited November 2011
    I've played through almost all of the Telltale games on a three-year-old laptop with moderately capable integrated graphics at mid-range graphics settings with few real problems. There have been a few challenging bits -- the opening of Tales of Monkey Island episode 1 for example -- that visibly overwhelmed its modest horsepower. But the nature of Telltale's games generally means that missed frames or toned-down graphical effects aren't going to seriously damage the experience. I'm running JP on a newish desktop machine with a 360 controller, however, when I finally get to sit down and play it. My 44-year-old reflexes were pushed a bit by Resident Evil 5's quicktime sequences. :)
  • Lord SeveinLord Sevein
    edited November 2011
    From what I understand the difference between the PC version and the iPad version are some slight tweaks in rendering and some smaller textures to account for the iPad having less ram. I own both editions (PC and iPad) and can't really tell much of a difference. They've done a good job making a lightweight engine to run the game in any number of devices (tablet, console, PC). That being said, the PC version is VERY light on the computer requirements.
  • WaruiKoohiiWaruiKoohii
    edited November 2011
    shamuboy wrote: »
    Yes. FSX was used on a very bad engine and used to much of the CPU and the GPU which pretty much killed gameplay no matter what powerful machine you had. That's why they are working on a new Flight Simulator game just called. "Flight". In my opinion with how Telltale games work and the engine they use... you should have no problem running it at a good 30 fps. :)
    FSX uses a lot of CPU power because it's a flight simulator, and by their very nature flight sims are CPU whores. It had nothing to do with the engine being "bad".

    That being said, I can max out FSX on my current PC, which is a mid-range PC from 2008. It only has a Q6600, and a Radeon 5770 (but I could max it out with my old Radeon 4670 as well).

    Additionally, it ran on my old computer which had an E4500 and a Radeon 4670, but I couldn't quite max it out. That was bordering on a low end PC, though.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.