there's no reason they can't optimize the PC version to run smooth on dual-core CPUs with 2 or 3 year old video cards

I suppose the main problem with optimization for the PC is that you usually have to deal with a few layers of API before you get to the actual hardware functions as opposed to having direct access to them on the 360.

Nonetheless, I thought this game did run quite well on older hardware? I have a E8500 CPU and a Geforce GTX295 and I can run the game on high settings without much stuttering. When the settings are low it runs even smoother than butter.

On consoles they use lower quality textures and sometimes lower res that is upscaled to the HD res. Anyway, W2 can be made to run well if you play around with the graphics settings.

Actually, it runs fine on dual-core CPUs and 4-year-old video cards. They just better be damn fast, like dandi8's (above). What it doesn't like is computers filled with crapware, slow-ass quad cores, and cheap video cards.

The Xbox 360 has 3 cores that are purpose-built to share the load in playing games and a graphics system that was audacious for its day and still holds up OK.

My system is:

Intel Core 2 Duo E7300 @ 2.66ghz
HD5750 512mb
4gb DDR2 Ram

I guess I'm just butthurt because the only way I can get the game to run smooth is in 1024x768 with everything else at its absolute lowest, and I don't want to splurge on a new rig for one game.

You should be able to do better than that with that hardware. But if you have a proprietary computer full of manufacturer's crapware, what you should get and what you do get can be different things.

Sometimes running the game in a window (say, 1280x720 on a 1280x1024 monitor) gives better results than running it full screen.

Yes there is. it's called optimization. You have a LOT to learn about graphics. To add to badpuppy. You don't even have an idea how console work do you?

Both the 360 and the PS3 have upscaler hardware. the actual images are rendered at 640x480 and then upscaled to "HiDef" So you can take that Hi Def up whereever feels better. Because you're getting screwed by consoles.

Well actually you are mostly wrong about that part. Read this
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

Except it does run perfectly fine on 2-3 years old PCs? Oh wait, don't tell me you expect it to run at 60FPS at max settings?Are you really that stupid? The XBox version won't be anywhere near max PC settings.

And I wish idiots would stop throwing around "optimization" like they knew anything about programming.

No, I don't, and no, I'm not. Grow the **** up.

Keep it civil, please. Especially those people that think themselves superior.

Anyway, a 5750 should be fine - I'm running 1920x1050 on a 4770 at playable framerates (roughly 20 fps, probably. Low-medium details).

Not sure about the CPU, though. 3Mb cache/2.66 Ghz is not that much (AMD X3 720 here).

Try upgrading that, if possible (no guarantee that it runs better, though). Better CPU's for socket 775 should be reasonably cheap by now.

Well the game ran fine on my 9800 GT 1GB @1920x1200. Though I have low standards in terms of framerate, as I prefer image quality over performance.

i'd say that you're the one that has a lot to learn. what is that 640x480 bull you're spouting? you think that the current gen consoles are no better than the nintendo 64 or psx?

current consoles either render at HD resolutions or render just under 720p, and then scale. the idea that you even think current gen console games can look the way they do at 640x480 is stupid, to say the least.

the consoles upscale, they don't do magic.

A lot of Xbox360 and PS3 games run @1024x720 or 1152x720 (Crysis 2 for example), which is why it still gets decent framerates @lower detail levels.

Opps, my bad. I let me being pissed at the new combat mechanics take the best of me. Shouldn't have been so arrogant, apologies to the user.. Thanks for the info. Still I hope I get the point across. The games are rendered at lower resolutions and producing less quality textures is easier.