Do you need a really powerful pc?

[:3c]

I mean i wanna buy this game but i have one simple question... will this run on my pc?

I really dont know much besides my processor so here it is:
Intel(R)
Pentium CPU B960 @ 2.20 GHz 2.20 GHz and this is a 64 bit machine

[The Potato]

I'm not sure a really powerful PC would help, I've tried the game on 3 different machines and it simply refuses to run properly. The most current one has a quad-core 3.8 ghz in it. My suggestion is google search can you run it or try to find recommended specs.

[Bullet Sponge]

You would need to know your GPU to make a judgement here. Some people are having framerate issues, but I suspect that is because they turned anti-aliasing on. This game uses supersampling IIRC, which is very demanding on a video card. Best to leave it off.
Go into control panel and find device manager. If you are on vista or newer, you can type it in the search box. Double click display adapters and tell us what you see there.

[Ronnie42]

Strangely I have a better machine that can't run it while my less powerful can so I guess it depends on what your using.

[Bullet Sponge]

Originally posted by ronnie42:

Strangely I have a better machine that can't run it while my less powerful can so I guess it depends on what your using.

Perhaps it runs better on certain brands of GPUs. I have one PC with an NVIDIA and one with an AMD, I'll see what kind of difference there is there. I guess I could also try the built in intel graphics on my Haswell rig.

[Bullet Sponge]

Ran it on a few different machines. Runs fastest on NVIDIA by far, on my I7 4770k with an Nvidia GTX 560 I got 181 FPS average with these settings:
1920x1080 rez
FXAA on
vsync off
max fps 10000
AF off
GPU sync off
Water reflection on
Instance rendering on
shadows on
Vegetation on

Using the same settings, my CPU's integrated graphics averaged 31 FPS.

I tried it on a 2.4 GHZ core 2 duo with a Radeon HD 4890. I had to change the settings a bit, and the monitor on that computer only goes up to 1280x1024.
1280x1024 rez
no AA
vsync off
AF off
GPU sync on
water reflection on
instance rendering on
shadows on
vegetation on

This rig averaged 36 FPS.
Without GPU Sync the game would freeze for moderate periods of time here and there, and the framerate would fluctuate. On Intel and Nvidia, GPU sync just seems to lower the framerate.

I also tried it on a Pentium 4 with a geforce 6600 XT, that was no fun.

[Ronnie42]

Originally posted by Bullet Sponge:

Originally posted by ronnie42:

Strangely I have a better machine that can't run it while my less powerful can so I guess it depends on what your using.

Perhaps it runs better on certain brands of GPUs. I have one PC with an NVIDIA and one with an AMD, I'll see what kind of difference there is there. I guess I could also try the built in intel graphics on my Haswell rig.

That could be the case but 'Oddworld Inhabitants' aka 'Just Add Water' have got in touch with me, there trying to look into it. I think the issue varies on different machines.

[Glencoco]

If you turn off all the graphics settings and run at a low resolution this game can run on anything. As long as it's compatible hardware. A pretty dang lightweight game.

[:3c]

Originally posted by Shadowphantom:

If you turn off all the graphics settings and run at a low resolution this game can run on anything. As long as it's compatible hardware. A pretty dang lightweight game.

Oh I was also wondering if I could do the command -dxlevel81 where it at least doubles the FPS

[Bullet Sponge]

Originally posted by Shadowphantom:

If you turn off all the graphics settings and run at a low resolution this game can run on anything. As long as it's compatible hardware. A pretty dang lightweight game.

Don't know if I'd agree with that. Especially if you're running an AMD or intel card. My integrated intel card is the latest desktop model (HD 4600 series from a haswell core i7) and I was barely able to get 30 FPS out of it. At minimal settings I could have eeked out a little more, but if you had a HD 2000 series or lower I doubt you'd have much luck. Most of the intel GPUs out there today pre-date the HD series entirely, so they likely wouldn't run it at any playable framerate.
My radeon 4890 was able to play it at 1280x1024 @ 36 FPS, but that was a $300 card when I got it. The '4' in 4890 is the generation of the card, there have since been 5000, 6000, 7000, R7 series (they were mostly just re-branded 7000 series cards), and R9 series cards. The next digit (8 in this case) indicates how high-end the card is within that generation, 9 being the highest.
My point is that the Radeon 4890 is faster than the R7 250 (according to passmark) and the second number in 250 is a 5, so the rule holds true. Once a card gets really old though, not so much.

Oh I was also wondering if I could do the command -dxlevel81 where it at least doubles the FPS

I tried that as a launch option, no difference. The game may not have DX 8.1 support, or it may use a different command. That's a HL2 source engine command, isn't it?

[:3c]

Oh I was also wondering if I could do the command -dxlevel81 where it at least doubles the FPS

I tried that as a launch option, no difference. The game may not have DX 8.1 support, or it may use a different command. That's a HL2 source engine command, isn't it? [/quote]
I thought any game uses DX 9 now so I think that command should work

[Bullet Sponge]

Actually come to think of it I believe Stranger's Wrath uses OpenGL 2, not directx. And some games will support directx 10 or 11 but not 9. For example, Just Cause 2 is Directx 10 but does not support directx 9, so it cannot be run on windows XP. Further, that command is for the "source" engine. The source engine is mostly used by games made by valve, like Half-Life 2 and Team Fortress 2. Stranger's wrath uses a propriatary game engine, made by oddworld inhabitants I suppose.

Games that support directx 9 will not necessarily support older directx versions, as they may use rendering effects that the old versions don't support and the game would look broken without them.

[:3c]

Originally posted by Bullet Sponge:

Actually come to think of it I believe Stranger's Wrath uses OpenGL 2, not directx. And some games will support directx 10 or 11 but not 9. For example, Just Cause 2 is Directx 10 but does not support directx 9, so it cannot be run on windows XP. Further, that command is for the "source" engine. The source engine is mostly used by games made by valve, like Half-Life 2 and Team Fortress 2. Stranger's wrath uses a propriatary game engine, made by oddworld inhabitants I suppose.

Games that support directx 9 will not necessarily support older directx versions, as they may use rendering effects that the old versions don't support and the game would look broken without them.

Ok, so this would mean this game has no way to make it run smoother?

[Bullet Sponge]

All you can really do is turn the settings down. If you have an AMD GPU, turn on GPU sync. Otherwise leave it off. Turning off vegetation and shadows make a significant differance IIRC, and don't even try supersampled anti-aliasing, just leave all antialiasing off including FXAA.

That and update your drivers.

[spacedraptor]

getting back to the question at hand, i would take a guess at your CPU is fine to run the game as long as you have a graphic's card installed. hope this helps simplfy things for you.

[Xona]

I bought the Oddbox a few years ago and I had a all in one computer at the time.
Intel i3
No grathics card

It ran at 15 frames and was so bugged out that I could not finish the intro...

I few weeks ago I put my own computer together.
AMD FX 8320
Gigabyte r9 280x windforce

I max everything out and get about 30 to 40fps... If my computer can handle Watch_Dogs crappy PC port at 50fps and Farcry at 50fps both maxed out. But only 30fps with Strangers Wrath.. I think you need a powerful computer to run it becasue of how buggy and badly ported it is.
Still love Oddworld...