Metro Exodus

[Dark Drakan]

Ehm... Be reasonable with it? The minimum graphics card listed for a 1080p 30 FPS and low graphics settings experience is a GTX 1050 for God's sake, and for 60 FPS and high settings apparently you need a damn 1070 or RTX 2060 (!) with no less than 8 GB of VRAM to boot.

Like, holy ****. I can understand high requirements for high settings and resolution but the minimum specs sound damn exaggerated for a target as low as 30 FPS with low settings, and at this point part of me hopes it isn't because the game is badly optimized.
For comparison, Last Light, which also looked pretty damn good for its time, only had a measly GTS 250 as a minimum requirement.

This sounds bonkers to me.

When I see spec jumps like this between titles (its only been 6 years) it is usually a safe assumption that it is indeed either poorly optimized or they have been exaggerated because a game has marketing partnership with AMD or nVidia so in turn inflates the VRAM requirements to boost sales of their new ranges of GFX Cards.

GTS 250 is over 10 year old card and like you said that was minimum for the game 6 years ago and now we need a card released last year as minimum. I have a 5 year old GTX 970 in my machine and its already being dropped as even the minimum requirement for SOME games (though it does have better specs than a GTX 1050).

8GB of VRAM to me for just the recommended at high settings & 60FPS is crazy as for most that would be classed as their minimum as they wont want to play on low settings.

Granted the game looks really nice and has decent attention to detail but I dont think it warrants specs as high as that for the recommended specs if it is well optimized. Sometimes I can forgive it if a games engine is particularly CPU or GPU dependent so requires a decent CPU or GPU for that reason but has then has a low CPU or GPU (depending which it requires) and RAM requirements but to recommended not just a high VRAM GPU but an i7 CPU AND 16GB RAM seems unnecessarily inflated.

If it was PC exclusive and was really pushing the boundaries of the hardware (like Crysis did in past for example) I could understand it a little more but as its releasing on console too and still looks great on them too with their aging hardware I dont understand the need for specs like that on PC.

 

[Carlos]

Ehm... Be reasonable with it? The minimum graphics card listed for a 1080p 30 FPS and low graphics settings experience is a GTX 1050 for God's sake, and for 60 FPS and high settings apparently you need a damn 1070 or RTX 2060 (!) with no less than 8 GB of VRAM to boot.

Like, holy ****. I can understand high requirements for high settings and resolution but the minimum specs sound damn exaggerated for a target as low as 30 FPS with low settings, and at this point part of me hopes it isn't because the game is badly optimized.
For comparison, Last Light, which also looked pretty damn good for its time, only had a measly GTS 250 as a minimum requirement.

This sounds bonkers to me.

When I see spec jumps like this between titles (its only been 6 years) it is usually a safe assumption that it is indeed either poorly optimized or they have been exaggerated because a game has marketing partnership with AMD or nVidia so in turn inflates the VRAM requirements to boost sales of their new ranges of GFX Cards.

GTS 250 is over 10 year old card and like you said that was minimum for the game 6 years ago and now we need a card released last year as minimum. I have a 5 year old GTX 970 in my machine and its already being dropped as even the minimum requirement for SOME games (though it does have better specs than a GTX 1050).

8GB of VRAM to me for just the recommended at high settings & 60FPS is crazy as for most that would be classed as their minimum as they wont want to play on low settings.

Granted the game looks really nice and has decent attention to detail but I dont think it warrants specs as high as that for the recommended specs if it is well optimized. Sometimes I can forgive it if a games engine is particularly CPU or GPU dependent so requires a decent CPU or GPU for that reason but has then has a low CPU or GPU (depending which it requires) and RAM requirements but to recommended not just a high VRAM GPU but an i7 CPU AND 16GB RAM seems unnecessarily inflated.

If it was PC exclusive and was really pushing the boundaries of the hardware (like Crysis did in past for example) I could understand it a little more but as its releasing on console too and still looks great on them too with their aging hardware I dont understand the need for specs like that on PC.

I see the problems.

Basically, they seem not optimized for PC, since in the middle console seems to do the bare minimum, while it's asking for more due to maybe partnership...?

 

[Dark Drakan]

I see the problems.

Basically, they seem not optimized for PC, since in the middle console seems to do the bare minimum, while it's asking for more due to maybe partnership...?

Just going off GPU alone as that seems to be the biggest overkill part of required PC specs, the base PS4 and XB1 is roughly equivalent to a GTX 750 and Xbox One X is roughly close to a RX580/GTX 1060 with PS4 Pro somewhere around a RX 570. But PC with the superior CPU and RAM requirements still need something like a GTX 1070 (£400+ card) for recommended specs and that doesnt seem right. At 1080p ive still managed to play pretty much everything released on highest settings with my 5 year old GTX 970 (4GB VRAM) so for it to suddenly be recommended as just over minimum requirement is a large leap.

 

[Foxtrot94]

With all these open areas, I hope they didn't eliminate sections where you can find the Darkness.

 

[Foxtrot94]

Just came to mind that not only will the game be a one year Epic exclusive, but since the publisher decided to throw that crap Denuvo sheite into it, it won't be on GOG either even when the exclusive deal expires.

****ing Deep Silver, man.