|
|
Post by ninjanaco on Oct 17, 2009 21:45:46 GMT -5
Just thought I'd rant about the ever-increasing system requirements in computer games and the cost it takes to match up with them.
As many gamers here know, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be out in November. As those same gamers probably also know, as of this posting the system requirements of said game are not known. Given the stats for Call of Duty: World at War, however, I'm quite pessimistic.
Why? Well, because even though I've had my 2.16 GHz dual Intel iMac for only two-and-a-half years, it seems far too many game designers think computers like mine are already obsolete.
CoD:WaW, for example, needs about 3.0 GHz at minimum to run, you need a processor with at least 2.8 GHz to play, and I was quite surprised when The Sims 3 needed only 2.0 GHz processor speed, with is within the reach of my system.
Of course, the game designers would say that they need the heavier system requirements to make the games better-looking and to add more features. But do they? Rome: Total War mods such as "Rome: Total Realism" and "Napoleonic Total War" show just what the R:TW engine can do, and do without the 500 extra mHz or doubling of RAM that Medieval II Total War requires. Why couldn't the Creative Assembly just tweak the R:TW engine for Medieval II and Empire?
There's also the economic issue - a contemporary computer game will cost about $30-60, but a new computer with the latest specs? Several thousand dollars. Which is the more economical?
Anyway, that's my rant about computer game system requirements. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by manofevil on Oct 18, 2009 0:38:42 GMT -5
It sounds roughly like the same rant every video game player had in the late seventies/early eighties before the advent of Windows and Macintosh. (the term 'Gamer' came much later) Every computer system had it's own set of killer games that every department store carried and, of course, your average middle class family could afford only ONE computer. So the young gamer was forced to walk past DOZENS of games he would never be able to play to get to the small selection of games that worked on the machine they had at home. The first Mac came out in 1984 and as impressive as a sytem that didn't work with a command line was, It seemed to be just another system with it's own platform and it's own set of games that gamers couldn't play with the neighbors because they used different computers. As speed and memory increased, Microsoft introduced Windows which ran on every IBM based computer system in existance. This plus the then infant internet led to the rise of crude online gaming and rudimentary gaming communities. Finally with the advent of high speed internet, it didn't matter what company had built your computer or for what purpose. If it had the memory and no competing software, You could play whatever game you wanted, usually by downloading it from the internet. this leads to two points:
One, everyone in the computer industry complains that Microsoft is an all consuming devourer of small companies and inventors, but nobody remembers what it was like when there were dozens of companies and no way of system communication.
Two, Many of those old games were very good. I keep waiting for someone to buy up the old copyrights and rerelease them. Crude as they were, I still loved Wizardry and Bard's Tale.
|
|
|
|
Post by shockwave on Oct 18, 2009 8:18:29 GMT -5
If you know your way around a PC, you can easily tweak things on both ends (computer and game software) so you can play it even if your PC doesn't meet up to 'rec' requirements. Just require a bit of knowhow.
Even if the game does look like crap, at least it still plays. All that matters.
(Shrugs.)
|
|
|
|
Post by drakkenfan on Oct 18, 2009 10:58:34 GMT -5
That's one of the reasons why you should have a console instead. You never have to worry about those problems. A PS3 game will always work on every PS3.
|
|
|
|
Post by railroadnut70 on Oct 18, 2009 12:29:20 GMT -5
If you know your way around a PC, you can easily tweak things on both ends (computer and game software) so you can play it even if your PC doesn't meet up to 'rec' requirements. Just require a bit of knowhow. Even if the game does look like crap, at least it still plays. All that matters. (Shrugs.) People often say that Windows is a "bloated" operating system. For instance, here's the minimum requirements to run Windows Vista Home Premium: 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor 1 GB of system memory 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space And that's just to run the operating system, and doesn't include any background programs like anti-virus, anti-spyware programs, and the like. For the upcoming Windows 7 Home Premium release, the system requirements are as follows: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit) 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit) DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver I, myself use Windows XP Professional, with 2 GB system memory, and have an NVIDIA 9800GT graphic card with 1 GB of video memory. To get my railroad simulation game (Auran Trainz 2006) to run properly, I have to do the following when running large routes with lots of scenery: 1) Disable anti-virus program (AVG 8.5) 2) Disable Windows Update 3) Use a program called EndItAll to close any other unnecessary background programs Even with all that, I sometimes get stutters, jitters, and reduced frame rates in built-up areas, along with occasional crashes to desktop. |
|
|
|
Post by shockwave on Oct 18, 2009 17:44:51 GMT -5
XP is a great operatng system. Vista was, and frankly still is, a mistake which basically flopped. That's why Microsoft are basically ditching Vista for Windows 7 already.
I don't know why you have Stutters, Jitters and the like but I've never had any sort of problems like that. Well, maybe only Windows slowing down sometimes when I run an intensive program, but that's it. Sure it's nothing on your end?
|
|
|
|
Post by railroadnut70 on Oct 18, 2009 19:28:59 GMT -5
I don't know why you have Stutters, Jitters and the like but I've never had any sort of problems like that. Well, maybe only Windows slowing down sometimes when I run an intensive program, but that's it. Sure it's nothing on your end? Of course, this game I speak of does use a lot of system resources. And you may be right, perhaps I don't have my 9800GT video card set up 100% right. I do get good frame rates, except in built-up areas on large routes, where these jitters occur. |
|
|
|
Post by railroadnut70 on Oct 22, 2009 4:11:17 GMT -5
And that's just to run the operating system, and doesn't include any background programs like anti-virus, anti-spyware programs, and the like. For the upcoming Windows 7 Home Premium release, the system requirements are as follows: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit) 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit) DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver Speaking of Windows 7, today (October 22) is the day that it is supposed to be released. I'd like to read about your experiences with Windows 7. |
|
|
|
Post by ninjanaco on Oct 22, 2009 10:24:17 GMT -5
That's one of the reasons why you should have a console instead. You never have to worry about those problems. A PS3 game will always work on every PS3. Actually, I have a Wii, but that doesn't seem to be a good game for normal games (I've got The Force Unleashed, but can't get past the first level.) Having played a little of CoD: WaW for the Wii, and other Call of Duty games on the computer, I must say I prefer the computer. Also, with a console you can't download mods, custom maps and stuff like that.  |
|
|
|
Post by shockwave on Oct 22, 2009 16:13:06 GMT -5
Modding...ah, a favourite pass time of mine.  I would SO create a Kim Possible mod' for a game if there wasn't the high chance I'd get Disney's legal dogs on me. :S |
|
|
|
Post by ShadigoIzayoi on Oct 22, 2009 16:48:51 GMT -5
Modding...ah, a favourite pass time of mine. I would SO create a Kim Possible mod' for a game if there wasn't the high chance I'd get Disney's legal dogs on me. :S I recommend Evil Genius for that... for one: it fits.  |
|
|
|
Post by shockwave on Oct 22, 2009 17:45:45 GMT -5
Play as Doctor Drakken or Prof' Dementor? |
|
|
|
Post by ShadigoIzayoi on Oct 22, 2009 20:38:21 GMT -5
Apparently doing those is quite difficult, though having KP as a Super Agent or Shego as a henchperson is fairly straightforward if you know what you're doing. Actually... Drakken COULD be quite easy... if you don't mind him being Fat and all... |
|
|
|
Post by LS on Oct 23, 2009 10:02:05 GMT -5
I think this guy would be a better base model for the good Doctor... Maximillian would be better for Dementor. |
|
|
|
Post by Nulla on Oct 28, 2009 9:23:33 GMT -5
hey - its been a while - thought i'd drop by and say hi hope you guys are doin well Just thought I'd rant about the ever-increasing system requirements in computer games and the cost it takes to match up with them. As many gamers here know, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be out in November. As those same gamers probably also know, as of this posting the system requirements of said game are not known. Given the stats for Call of Duty: World at War, however, I'm quite pessimistic. I think requirements have come out - they're not that much different to Modern Warefare 1 Why? Well, because even though I've had my 2.16 GHz dual Intel iMac for only two-and-a-half years, it seems far too many game designers think computers like mine are already obsolete. I have nothing against Macs (I have one myself), but the main audience for these sorts of games are PC guys and console users. Also the imac wasn't ever spec'd to have beefy gfx performance CoD:WaW, for example, needs about 3.0 GHz at minimum to run, you need a processor with at least 2.8 GHz to play, and I was quite surprised when The Sims 3 needed only 2.0 GHz processor speed, with is within the reach of my system. Of course, the game designers would say that they need the heavier system requirements to make the games better-looking and to add more features. But do they? Rome: Total War mods such as "Rome: Total Realism" and "Napoleonic Total War" show just what the R:TW engine can do, and do without the 500 extra mHz or doubling of RAM that Medieval II Total War requires. Why couldn't the Creative Assembly just tweak the R:TW engine for Medieval II and Empire? put simply two things: eye candy - nothing jizzes the masses more than bleeding edge graphics with 'all that' - most people try, and get it wrong, if done right - its awesome (also the reason why you spend a bit more on a system that will last you a few years - like quadcore and mid-high end graphics) programmer lazyness - cos of the complexity of trying to get eye candy, it can make persons lazy and not think about ways to improve efficiency etc etc of the exisitng engine. - however - saying that take a walkthrough of the development notes (of actual maps) in Half-Life 2 Episodes 1 & 2 and you'll notice that some smarter dev's are more creative with how they acheive some affects without smashing your system - thats why like games such as Left For Dead , TF2 and Portal look great on a mid-high end box and yet still run quite nicely on a plain shitbox like my old comp (A64 3500 / 2gb / 7600GT) - this means that the game is developed well and is quite scalable - an example of the contrary is GTA 4 (which i kinda regettably bought) needs my Q6600 to be overclocked to run smoothly (Q6600 @ 3.2ghz / 4gb / GTX 260 / Vista64 HomePrem) Also remember designers only developed their software for the hardware of that time - take for example "Jimmy White's Cueball World" - great game - but only runs nicely on a pc that is slower than 2Ghz - any faster and its like playing on acid or something (like 4x speed) - that game was only designed to play on systems back in 2004 There's also the economic issue - a contemporary computer game will cost about $30-60, but a new computer with the latest specs? Several thousand dollars. Which is the more economical? Anyway, that's my rant about computer game system requirements. What do you think? yes and no : you kinda need to plan what you have to run games with, i usually recommend going mid/high range cos it'll last you at least a couple of years if you plan rightget a feel for the games that are comming out now - if ur getting a new box, assume they'll need more in the future so get best bang for your buck, but still have an upgrade path i kno you have a imac - but that's the reason why I have both, a mac cos its a mac and a semi-decent PC for games and other stuff like that There's also the economic issue - a contemporary computer game will cost about $30-60, but a new computer with the latest specs? Several thousand dollars. Which is the more economical? try forking out $100-$110 AUD ~ $90 USD (guesstimate!) for each game ... and also getting watered down versions of some games like Left For Dead 2 cos of moronic government bodies >;(
Also - my old shitbox computer (Spec Athlon64 3500+ @ 2.2 ghz, 2gb ddr ram, 512mb 7600GT) was built in 2004, it was nothing spesh, just midrange bits and peices and costed a mint at the time
to get the same money's worth, you can get a descent system taht willl set you up for quite a few games now and in the future
to show you what i mean - this computer was designed in the era of HL2 coming out and ran that well - NOW: the comp wont run the latest bit of kit, but runs things like Modern Warefare 1, HL2 EP 1 + 2, Portal, TF2, Left 4 Dead quite fine..... all you need is good mainteance and some tweaking of the game settings to get the most pleasure out of ur box....
plan it right and you'll wont need to replace for quite a while yet! (i.e. get a system which is upgradeable, but well spec'd in the first place!) |
|
|
|
Post by Nulla on Oct 28, 2009 9:27:47 GMT -5
That's one of the reasons why you should have a console instead. You never have to worry about those problems. A PS3 game will always work on every PS3. hey drakkenfan - hope all's well sorry but for some games the PS3 version is quite sluggish compared to a well spec'd PC example: Racedriver GRID at full res 1920*1080 on ps3 vs mid-high spec pc (q6600 / 4gb / 896mb GTX 260) - my box will not skip a beat on this game and from my experiences with the same game on PS3 not comparable - i have a few mates that feel the same way however - it balances on your pc, how well its maintained and all that ciao!  |
|
|
|
Post by Nulla on Oct 28, 2009 9:33:16 GMT -5
Speaking of Windows 7, today (October 22) is the day that it is supposed to be released. I'd like to read about your experiences with Windows 7. I hear its better than the RC I've had the RC for both x64 and x86 for a while and it was pretty good. in terms of speed its between XP and Vista if u ahve internet access, windows update (from my experiences) is actually really good for drivers - and also sorts out the devices (such as notebook dedicated graphics) and has proper dx9 drivers for them however - it still has teething problems (and the reason why im reluctant to buy) - and cos the fact im still scarred from Vista on that note I would love to try the XP mode feature - apparently its like VMWare Fusion on Mac interesting  |
|
|
|
Post by shockwave on Oct 28, 2009 13:53:13 GMT -5
Left 4 Dead. Love that game. Left 4 Dead 2 looks good, but the displacement on the atmosphere (the South being with all bright colours and all,) kinda makes it look a bit crappy compared to the first one. Still, I'll end up getting it. |
|
|
|
Post by ShadigoIzayoi on Oct 28, 2009 18:11:26 GMT -5
...if you say so... CLICKERS!!if you want XP mode, hope you have lots of RAM... you'll need it. It would be interesting if I could use it. |
|
|
|
Post by Nulla on Oct 29, 2009 2:55:30 GMT -5
Left 4 Dead. Love that game. Left 4 Dead 2 looks good, but the displacement on the atmosphere (the South being with all bright colours and all,) kinda makes it look a bit crappy compared to the first one. Still, I'll end up getting it. Yea - we are unfortunate enuf to force valve to make a watered down version >;( - if the gore isnt as good as L4D 1 - then I wont be buying...... I hope they release a demo of the watered down version so i can see - btw we need more official map packs like crash course! to run XP mode u just have to satisfy virtualisation requirements - VT on intel processors and enuf resources to run everything fast enuf..... XP doesnt need much (and I've got plenty of resources to keep me going)! im running virtual stuff for a while now and so long as you have enuf for the systems u run on it (i.e. enuf for X amount of virtualised pc's) then ull be right - most ppl will only use 1 also to add - i like how windows 7 comes with xvid/divx decoders out of the box - about time! |
|
