Comments with -10 or lower "thumbs" are removed from display.

• 
  0 thumbs!

  teodortenchev | January 23, 2008
  Looks like I won't be playing this game
• 
  0 thumbs!

  slumpy monkey | January 23, 2008
  Shit 3 rams alot.
  
  Luckly m laptom has 3 gig of ram so go me.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  jmac353 | January 23, 2008
  Specs wise, yes, it gives it a run for it's money.
  
  Graphically, Crysis is still better, this is just a matter of inefficient programming code. They clearly don't want to spend enough time creating an efficient port and redesign it for the PC. They'd rather just have inefficient code and require gamers to have crazy specs.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  Red 9 | January 23, 2008
  Specs, yes. Performance, no.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  IAMJOB56 | January 23, 2008
  The RAM and high hardware needs are probably from the HUGe panoramic world of AC. All that beuty isn't easy to make. lol.
• 
  1 thumbs!

  VeGiTAX2 | January 24, 2008
  well that and the whole memory consumption from the OS issue.
  
  Regardless, 2GB of DDR2 in most systems isn't a whole lot of money anymore, I get mailers from newegg and tigerdirect with $40 2GB kits, a pentium d runs around $80, a core 2 duo 2.2GHz runs $88.
  
  The specs sound like they're epic, but pricing has been coming down for quite a while now.
  
  Hopefully this isn't another cheap XNA port, it's been disappointing enough with the past ports and their absurd requirements to run things because they didn't want to take more time with the code. It's not like the Xbox GPU is so godly it can't be approached, the R600 and RV670 blow away the shader units available. =/ oh well it's to be expected.