I'd have to echo Eskie's statement, seriously I haven't run anything at 640x480 since Windows 3.11, it's just plain bad and unenjoyable. Though I must admit from playing the demo, Painkiller does seem like the kind of engine that would be fairly low spec machine friendly. Unfortunately im not seeing Doom 3 being happy on low spec machines, i'd seriously take thouse minimums with a pinch of salt. You'll be able to run it, but I bet it'll play like a geriatric mental patient ballsed up to the eyeballs on morphine.

Doom 3, awesome. Nothing better than wading your way through a sea of dead imps with a rocket launcher, now, with better visuals! =D

@Esky: Blah, blah, blah. Running these new games like Painkiller and Doom 3 on my system at high resolutions is a very bad idea. I'm talking, slowdown from Hell. As for the system requirements for Doom 3? Check this site out: http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
Copy and paste it, I don't know how to link it. If you're wanting to go to the top-of-the-line ATI video card for Doom 3, forget about it. NVIDIA wipes the floor with ATI in Doom 3's case. These are the benchmarks for Doom 3. On the first page of the article, it says that if you can play any of this year's FPS's on a machine like mine, you can play Doom 3. Painkiller runs just fine on my machine.

"Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived."

Mee - An article? I've seen it; I love <H> . Still, you believe benchmarks, especially those? *Shake shead* This one has much to learn.

Well as I have said, Painkiller ran perfectly for me with everything on, and with 4x AA and 8x AF. If Doom 3 runs anywhere near as well with full detail, I'll be amazed.

Edited by - esquilax on 7/23/2004 12:12:19 AM