Larian Studios Forums Beyond Divinity (English) Technical Problems Minimum requirements

HI!, i've been looking at beyond divinity for about a month (ever since it was on Gamezville lol) and it looks so cool! Look like Diablo2 to be honest (which ant a bad thing its been my fav game ever since i was 8) but i was wondering if my crappy graphics card (only a hercules 3d prophet kyro 4500 tv-out) will be able to play it. Can ne1 help. (btw i orded the game yesterday - 23 march <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)


thx a lot

[color:"orange"]Look like Diablo2 to be honest[/color]

There are some similarities with the interface, but the world is much more interactive, there are actual quests (the Battlefields will have random simple quests similar to Diablo 2, ie go kill something to get an object), and you can make choices that have some influence on the game. The stat and skill systems are also much more open ended and customizable, and should allow much more variety in effective character builds.


[color:"orange"]i was wondering if my crappy graphics card (only a hercules 3d prophet kyro 4500 tv-out) will be able to play it.[/color]

The official minimum requirement is a Geforce2 class video card, but people have reported it running fine on less (ie Voodoo 3). See;
omg.. what are the requirements on this game!?

Check out the demo. It is the first section of the start of the game, so by design is fairly linear and mostly hack-and-slash. Coming from Diablo, though, you should be pretty used to that. Later acts are not linear, and the full game will have more and more elaborate quests. There are a few things that were updated for the full game that were not in the demo (party selection and screen movement/re-centre hotkeys, for example), but the performance of the demo should give you an idea of how the game will perform.


Welcome to the forum. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> runs fine in my TNT2 graphic card and my GEFORCE2 card. (I have tested it in two pcs). Especially in my TNT, I did not even have to download any new drivers. But for <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beyond.gif" alt="" /> I really don´t know. I suppose that it will be ok though.

Below are the specs:

Windows xp with all the latest hardware drivers and updates (SP1)(NTFS file system)
128 MB RAM
Intel 4 1.70 GHZ processor
ATI RAGE 128 PRO II graphics card (16 MB)
Intel integrated audio
Not sure about the motherboard
20 GB Maxtor hard drive
Running in 800x600 with fps or whatever its called
Test reported 60 FPS (frames per second)
Using optical mouse (trust)


As it stands the game often hangs for 20 seconds or more and is generally slow.
Loading times also take ages.
The question i am asking is what to upgrade:
1. The CPU
2. The graphics card
3. The amount of RAM

Or pherhaps a combination of the above or there is always the option of building a new system but i would rather upgrade.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

P.S. Feel free to suggest upgrades other than the above things mentioned.

i'd do CPU and Graphics card. at the store were i went today, i could get a 9200 radeon for 80$ plus a 2.5 processor for 80$ or so.

but thats only here...

Windows XP is taking up a good chunk of your RAM, so depending on cost, I would look at upgrading that. I think the general rule of thumb for MS operating systems is to double the minimum recommended RAM to get something acceptable.

I had no problems with a Duron 1.3GHz, other than a couple 1 second slowdowns. Unless you are doing other CPU intensive things or find a great deal, there is no need to upgrade your CPU.

You should be able to find a better video card that is relatively cheap. I would try upgrading the RAM first, though (depending on your budget) since that should help with the system in general and not just with games.

Do you have an LCD monitor? Just curious; most of them are set to a 60Hz refresh rate. If you go into your video driver options there may be an option to disable vsync (mine is under a 3D tab of the Display properties, in the Direct 3D options). Vsync basically tells the computer to complete one full frame before starting the next. Disabling it can improve the frame rate in games, but may lead to a lower image quality.
For Beyond Divinity I don't think you need to worry about it; even 60fps should be good enough. I tried the demo on a laptop that had vsync enabled and 60fps was fine. The only reason to want frame rates as high as possible is so the game doesn't slow down when there are a large number of things on screen, but this is much more of an issue in first person shooters and flight simulators.

The speed of you hard drive would have an impact on load times, but probably not the main effect. Unless you have a 5400 rpm model and are doing other things involving a lot of slow loading, I would not upgrade/add a hard drive.

Am-RaZe-ing .... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> a wealth of info up there eh, bud? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for the info Raze <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />.

I have an old fashioned chunky moniter running at 60 Hz (before it was 75).
The RAM seems to be the problem since the minimum requirement for XP is 128 MB. I will probably upgrade to 256 or 512 depending on the budget.

The hard drive is running at 7200 RPM (IDE).

I will probably upgrade the graphics card since future games will need at least 32 MB if not 64.
I was thinking of getting a Radion 9800 but i heard certain games didnt work with the ATI chipsets and yet others are designed for the nvidia chipsets <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" />.
To be completely honest i simply cannot afford a 9800 (over 300 squid) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />.
Is it worth getting the "Abit Radeon 9600" (128 MB) or splashing out on a 9800?

If i build a new system I will have apprxomately 900 English pounds to spend so
That should be enouph to for a system with the above devices although i can probably make it much better.

I would rather upgrade though since it would not cost nearly as much <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />.

It obviously needs more research but the information was greatly appreciated <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.


Oo|GHOST|oO

A CRT monitor at 60Hz would give me a headache in under half a minute.

I just upgraded my video card from a GeForce 2 to a Radeon 9600XT. I also checked out reviews and various problem / compatibility reports, but different reviews said different things and they each seemed to have their share of problems. Because of my 'obsolete' 1.3GHz Duron, the card benchmarks in 3DMark almost 20% slower than it would in a faster system, though that should not have a significant impact in any games I am likely to try in the next couple years.
I would go for the 9600 (or even 9200) as an upgrade, and when you need to build a new system and have the money, then consider the latest/greatest video card. I didn't really look at price / performance of lower level cards because I am planning to stick with my current computer until I install something that will not run properly; I figured the 9600 XT would last the longest.

Since you are at least considering a Radeon 9800, take a look at at a few monitors. For the same price you may be able to get a Radeon 9600 and a decent monitor a size or two larger than what you have. Then again, you may want to wait until you have the money to get a fairly good monitor, then hang onto it through several computer upgrades.

hey Raze, I'm getting a new graphics card too soon!

and I got a geforce 2 also!!!

what is better (you think) 9600 128 xt, 9600 256 xt, 9800 128 xt ???

thanks!

If you have the money and are planning on playing any of the upcoming games that take advantage of DirectX 9 programmable shaders (Half-Life 2, etc), then the 9800 XT would be the best card.
If you are not going to be playing the latest FPS or flight simulator games, then the 9600 XT should be good enough. I think it benchmarks at about 70/80% of the 9800, but I didn't check that very closely, since the price disqualified the 9800 in my case.

I went with a Sapphire 9600 XT 256MB, since that was pretty much the same price as other brand's 128MB cards, and Sapphire mostly seemed to have a good reputation. The 256MB versions are clocked slightly slower than the 128MB cards, but for the difference, the extra memory will likely hold out longer as the requirements are raised in future games. Plus, you can always give overclocking a try (if you are not worried about the warrantee), but can not upgrade the video memory.

No, I doubt I'll be playing flight simulaters (X-wing vrs Tie Fighter!) or Half Life etc.

hmm.

so in the future it may be that we need 256 mb cards???

im thinking now either a 256 or 128 9600.


are the Saphire's not as good as the ATI's?

I don't know if we will need 256MB cards, or not, but the memory requirements of games are a lot more likely to go up rather than down. New motherboard / video card designs may make current video cards obsolete faster than increasing memory requirements, though.

Like all Radeon card makers, Sapphire starts with ATI's reference design, and may make minor changes (I don't think anyone makes major adjustments anymore). Part of the price difference is because ATI can charge more being a major name brand, part because the Sapphire card I bought did not have a software bundle (I don't really like the types of games included with video cards anyway).
As far as I know their video card quality is not any lower.

Ahhhh to dream of winning the lottery, to get this baby..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />

Does nobody like Nvidia, or is ATI just better? or cheaper.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

Qualitywise they are about the same, and have been going back and forth with who has the latest and greatest. ATI video cards tend to require less cooling that nVidia, and are therefore quieter. For awhile nVidia's top of the line cards needed a large, loud heatsink and air duct that took up the PCI slot below the video card. A few months ago when I was looking at video cards they were starting to get away from that. The card you are looking at doesn't have an air duct; they may have phased that out completely by now.