Its a shame, 8 gigs of ram but only a 2.4 dual core. Sigh looks like i will be playing xbox style.

Those requirements are inaccurate. There is no way it requires that much. And check out the difference between minimum and required...not a lot of it is there?! Yeah we need a typo check on these.

Will eyefinity / multimonitor gameplay be supported?

YAY. This way I only have to buy more Ram.

We haven't gotten an update on these system requirements but I feel they won't be too taxing and we will receive a good optimized PC version.

Very disappointed. The system requirements are insane. I thought the cartoon look would make the requirements much lower. I guess I won't be getting the game on launch day then. Will have to read about how it runs on different systems for different people.

Most people agree these settings are not accurate and it's obvious as to why (compare minimum and recommended). I suggest waiting for an update on them or like you said see how the game runs for most people before buying it.

I don't even know why these settings are being considered unreasonable. If you can't meet the requirements, you're clearly not actively using your PC as a gaming machine. Ditto for running XP. You may as well have been complaining about needing to buy an Xbox 360 to play Halo 3. Also minimum and recommended settings are generally not that far off from each other, especially recently. I doubt there are any typos.

Hm, haven't noticed that. The DirectX 9 came as a surprise though. Well I guess it can be argued that it is coming out for consoles as well. Whatever the case the problem is accessibility.

These are the confirmed official specs, and it has been a couple weeks now since they've been published, so this is clearly not a typo.

I think the reason some folks are a bit concerned and why we thought there might be a typo is because the Dishonored minimum specs are higher than Metro2033, Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3, which are the most demanding recent PC games. There are quite a few graphics cards weaker than the AMD 5850 that can run most games on high settings at 1080p; however, they would appear not be able to run Dishonored even on low settings.

How does that make sense when the game is clearly not all that demanding?

The XP thing is stupid. Glad it's just CYA. Who needs an OS that allows the use of more memory only to eat it all up with a bunch of childish, wrongheaded, bloated junk? Not me. I'll stick with XP; others can have their pretty frosted glass, ribbons and idiotproofing idiocy...

Thanks.

I felt that way about XP; given the choice, I'd still be using Win2k/SP4.

I wonder why you're not on Linux if you are claiming that. And if you say because Linux doesn't get enough support as Windows does then you would know why many people converted over to Windows 7...

It does have a lot of unnecessary BS but it's look isn't the problem, most of the effects are however. Besides, I haven't had any difficulties with it at all (had a ton more with XP) and it really compliments my machine's specs and functions well.

We'll see how it runs when the game comes out. If they've overestimated the minimum requirements and lose out on some pre-order/day one sales because of that, then that's their loss. People will catch up if the game turns out to run fine with weaker cards.

My guess is still that the minimum requirement is any somewhat decent 512MB graphics card.

Agree. We'll see what happens and how this will affect its sales.

I feel the same, XP was very bloated at it's time. By the time I switched to XP anyway because some games (or rather xinput.dll) started to require it, Vista had already been out for a while. Now I'm using Windows 7 though, and I am rather pleased with it actually, but I do miss Win2k.

Aye, I suspect the minimum requirements is for a smooth gaming experience at 1920x1080 as it's a very common computer resolution these days (the most common one according to the Steam survey). But there shouldn't be anything that stop a user from playing in 1280x720 or something instead and without any AA and so on, on a weaker card. Well, not if I'm correct anyway

I never play with those effects on I even tend to avoid them. To me most games look better without them especially Valve's games. But I always play on my native resolution (1600x900) and I always play with high or very high texture quality and world quality.

Holy crap. Guess I can't play then. Dual core 2.75, 2GB RAM, 9800GT 512MB

By the way, I use 1280x1024, think the game can spare me with that resolution? Or if things come to worst, at absolute lowest possible settings?

This game and its concepts are far too appealing to miss just because I can't afford a new PC

Yes, hopefully the minimum specs are merely overly cautious and once the game is released, we can get some benchmarks with cards weaker than the 5850.



Yes, I imagine these specs are for 1920x1080 resolution, as the Skyrim minimum and recommended specs were also both for 1080p.

I'll definitely report on how well Dishonored runs in 1080p on my HD4850 512MB.

I looked it up, the 9800GT seems to be around equally powerful as the HD4850 which I have. So if I can run it at 1920x1080, which I expect I will, hopefully on medium settings, you should be able to run it at 1280x1024.

Depending on your playstyle, Dishonored will rely more heavily on CPU or GPU: play it super stealthy, combining together a lot of powers affecting your vision (such as Blink or Dark Vision) not to get caught, and you'll find yourself GPU bound pretty quickly on lower end cards. On the opposite, play it the brutal way, alerting and fighting every single AI on a map at the same time, and your CPU will suffer, especially if the game runs with 2 threads only.

The min spec were quite high on purpose, so that people experience a constantly smooth and stable game. Most of the time, the game will run great on lower systems for sure - especially if you give a try to lower display resolutions such as 1280x720 (720p) or 1280x800 - but you may experience framerate drops in some spots, which might end up hurting your gaming experience.

Edit: Our goal was to ensure 100% that if you have these specs, you will not only be able to launch the game but it will run smoothly on your PC. We're fighting against the legacy of min specs being the specs at which the game launches but then runs miserably for some of the users.

Now that's what i call, having gameplay choices affecting you

Makes sense. I'd say that when people think of 'minimum requirements' we initially think of the lowest specs you could have where with all the settings turned down where you would still have a playable game. It's good to hear that these minimum specs are actually offering a smooth experience, rather than a 'it doesnt look great and the framerate drops when things get busy but it technically works' experience.

Instead of pre-ordering the game at certain stores which offer bonuses that suit our playstyles, we will now be upgrading our PCs to suit our playstyles.

So what does that mean for me when I cover the recommended exactly and don't attack effects like V-Sync or AA and so on? I can run it both smooth and with higher quality?