Trending Games | Guild Wars 2 | Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn | Elder Scrolls Online | Neverwinter
Network: Gamertube FPSguru RTSguru
| 45 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
It was a problem in planetside and Everquest 2 at launch it is same in planetside 2.the minimum spec as it is is higher then most games and is not playable at that you need at least the recommended to play and not even possible in big battles. They really need to optimise it big time if they plan to grab a mainstream audience ,I recall how many people left planetside at launch due to high specs and it will happen again.if people did not upgrade enmass in 2005 when the economy was booming for planetside ,no way will they do it in 2012 in a deep recession. |
|
|
9/19/12 5:47:30 PM#2
I see where your concern is, however you have to take a moment and realize that the game gets optimized and unoptimized with every other patch. They're messing with it until they get it right. Posting here about it won't get it fixed either. You have to give your input on the Beta forums under Technical Issues. If you have never participated in a true Beta before, then now is a great time to learn. For instance, I have a below min spec machine (Should not be able to play PS2 at all) and the game was frustratingly unplayable 2 months ago, beautifully playable a month ago (I'm talking 30+ FPS in large battles with no hiccups), and now it's just stutteringly unplayable after this last patch. Instead of whining on MMORPG.com I decided to post my specs, feedback, and constructive criticism about it on the PS2 Beta Forums where that stuff belongs. Maybe I'll be able to play next patch, and maybe not. Hell, with my specs I shouldn't of even been able to play AT ALL, but I was able to because previous Beta testers gave their feedback, and now I am doing the same. On top of that, SOE always tries to release games that are made for next-gen machines. Yes, it's a pain in the ass for those of us that don't have tons of money, but it seems like they've been putting a little more effort into optimizing PS2 for lower end machines than is usual for them. "I am a biotic god! I think things... and they happen!"
|
|
|
9/19/12 8:02:35 PM#3
Originally posted by hercules theres numerous posts about this issue, moreover, theres also posts that some people with on par or over reccommended specs continue to has frame rate issues will some , also on par or in some case slightly under. are having better frame rate than their counter parts.
they have no choice but to get the game optimized which they are doing, what im more interested with is how the dev time will handle getting people with ATI cards up to snuff in gameplay performance. |
|
|
9/19/12 8:12:22 PM#4
Where did you find the system specs? The only purported specs that I could find with a Google search were completely incoherent, and looked like random guessing written by someone who doesn't know much about computer hardware. "GeForce 500 series" or later would be a completely stupid thing to put in the specs; the 500 series is just a respin of the 400 series, and the lowest end 500 series card is actually much slower than the lowest end 400 series card that was sold to the general public. And then listing a Phenom II X6, when there are few games where that will provide a meaningful advantage over a Phenom II X4? The purported minimum specs listed two different video cards, one of which is about 3-4 times as fast as the other, which would leave it unclear whether a broad swath of hardware meets the minimum specs or not.
|
|
|
9/19/12 11:52:39 PM#5
Originally posted by Tallyn
Everything this guy said is true. When I first got in my 32bit win xp dual core 280gtx was able to play confortably on medium except for shadows. Then they decided to improve performance for higher end rigs and that patch made the game unplayable for me after. Anyways its 2012, the beta was fun enough to make me order a completely new system that should last me 5+ years. |
|
|
9/20/12 12:30:08 AM#6
As for the quick Google, it returns pretty much what are listed as the beta requirements. Even though it lists XP, it also lists 4 GB of RAM - so you're looking at 64-bit XP. They want at least 3.0 GHz dual core - whether you're going AMD or Intel. Now, the GPU side's definitely interesting. 256MB, eh? But saying 4850 or higher? Er...no, lol. That would be 512MB min then. Course, that 8600 is quirky as Hell - because that's not on par with a 4850. That's getting into the 8800 Ultra and the 9800s....and above. Then of course, you run into the issue where somebody sees 4850 and they believe because they have a 5xxx, 6xxx, or 7xxx card that they're good to go. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You'd be looking at x850, y850, z850... a 5670 or a 6770 is not as good as a 4850. The 5670's better than a 4670 and the 6770 is better than a 5770 or a 4770... but that first number's going to throw folks. But yeah, based on what one sees at the various hardware surveys from folks like Steam and the rest - some of the MMO developers do not realize how much the general MMO populace lags behind. And lol, those are just the min specs - as in everything turned off and at an itty bitty resolution. There's likely a post somewhere on the forums over there about various recommended specs for running at various resolutions. If you want to run at X, you need Y - etc, etc, etc. I ran into the same thing with TSW. I didn't have the money sitting around to upgrade my machine and the girlfriend's - not when we can play other things fine. It just wasn't time yet. For PS2 though - one might have the expectation that folks that play these kind of games are more likely to have updated their machines to play the SP/MP versions. So you can kind of see where they're coming from... I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again? Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20% |
|
|
9/20/12 4:11:03 PM#7
I'd guess that MMO developers actually have a really good idea of what kind of hardware people are playing/attempting to play their games with.
The min spec on this game appears that it will be a machine that was approaching top of the line (mid/high) about 4.5 years ago... by the time of launch, it will be about 5 years old.
Not sure there is anything particularly out of line about that...
|
|
|
9/20/12 4:17:50 PM#8
this is what i saw for specs http://help.station.sony.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/35012/p/5833 The game is still in the earliest stages of Beta so these are far from the final specifications, but below are listed the current recommended specs for running PlanetSide® 2 as it was meant to be run. Current Minimum System Requirements
EQNext press http://EQ3Wire.com EQ2: Freeport server |
|
|
9/20/12 4:37:11 PM#9
Originally posted by fadis Looking at the following, I'd guess that two MMO developers do not have a really good idea of what hardware people have... PS2 coming:
MoP Sep 2012:
GW2 Aug 2012:
TSW Jul 2012:
Tera May 2012:
SWTOR Dec 2011:
RIFT Mar 2011:
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again? Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20% |
|
|
9/20/12 4:59:58 PM#10
Originally posted by Beanpuie Do you mean amd CPU's? Because i'm running PS2 with a pair of 6850's in crossfire and the game is smooth as silk, even in the most intense battles. |
|
|
9/20/12 6:20:00 PM#11
Originally posted by Nadia That matches what I found on some other sites, and it's completely incoherent. If a GeForce GT 520 meets the recommended requirements and a Radeon HD 6850 doesn't, then something is very badly broken to the degree that the game isn't ready for alpha testing, as the latter card has something like 6 times the performance of the former. Posting drivel like that on their official web page (meaning I blame SOE, not you) does more to muddle than clarify the issue of whether a computer can handle the game. That completely defeats the point of posting system requirements in the first place. It would be more informative if they were to throw up their hands in the air and say, "We have no clue whether your computer can handle the game." But then, SOE's web pages has always been a complete disaster. Once I looked into Vanguard and concluded that the game hadn't released and wasn't close to it--and later learned that this was about two years after release. The Infantry web page required you to register and log in before they information on how to download the game would appear. I don't hate SOE the way some people do, but their web site has to be costing them customers. To take it apart a little more, it requires DirectX--but we have no idea what version. A card in the GeForce 500 or 600 series meets the recommended specs, even if it's a renamed card from the 400 series--but if you have one with a sticker on it that says 400 series, it doesn't. And if you have an AMD card that is several times as fast, that also doesn't. Nvidia's mid-range card from the 8000 series meets the minimum specs, but ATI's high end from that series and the one after it doesn't. Who wrote that? Even Nvidia marketing flacks usually don't exaggerate that much. And a dual core processor meets the minimum specs, while a higher clocked quad core with equivalent cores doesn't? A very slow ULV dual core meets the recommended specs, but a dramatically faster quad core doesn't? I can understand saying, this particular processor or better, but why Core 2 Duo E6850, and make people look up the specs on it elsewhere? Even people who work for Intel probably usually don't know the specs just from the model number. |
|
|
9/20/12 6:26:49 PM#12
Im running like a 3yr old PC (wasn't even top-spec back then) and my PS2 in it's current state runs fluid on 1920x1080, dunno what's your gripe about, unless you're playing on a pentium3 machine.
Lot of games out there that are specced way beyond what PS2 is, and those are current "beta specs" Currently playing: FTB Ultimate Waiting for: Wildstar, ArcheAge, Class4. Dead and Buried: GW2, SWTOR, Darkfall, AO, AC2, Vanguard, CoH/V, EnB, EVE, Neocron, FE, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, FFXI, SWG, WoW, and billions of eastern junks! |
|
|
9/20/12 6:30:15 PM#13
Originally posted by VirusDancer All of the ones that you list except for the Planetside 2 one are at least coherent. You could tell me that you have such and such hardware, and I could tell you that it meets the requirements or doesn't, or maybe only that it's right around the minimum requirements. That's the point of posting system requirements. And to be fair, there is some wiggle room, as one person may think that 20 frames per second on minimum settings is fine, while another thinks 30 is unplayable. |
|
|
9/20/12 6:35:37 PM#14
WAY too early to conclude anything right now. That said, theyre pretty much on top of things. Lots of reports coming in and lots of replies on their part. I wanted to type something really smart as a reply to this subject, but the Scarlet Blade ad got me distracted and I forgot what I wanted to type. |
|
|
9/20/12 6:37:36 PM#15
Originally posted by Quizzical after looking at the spec's for the various games listed, they seemed pretty straight forward tbh, so not sure how he came up with more than 1 as being.. a bit out of touch.. but yes, the requirements for the game do appear to be a bit confusing, not that i'd be rushing out the door to upgrade any time soon.. hopefully when the game is actually closer to release, they will be able to post more 'coherent' spec requirements for it.. but .. this is SOE.. so im kind of wondering if thats a realistic assumption. |
|
|
9/20/12 7:12:21 PM#16
Originally posted by Phry Um... it was pretty simple - look at the requirements: CPU & GPU for all the games aside from TSW and PS2. You could meet the requirements for all of the other games, but not meet the requirements for TSW or PS2. It's not about the requirements being coherent or not - it's about the level of the requirements and having an understanding of the hardware out there being used by the masses. TSW and PS2 do not. Yes, there is most definitely the separate issue of the PS2 requirements not making sense in of themselves... but that's not the point I was making. It was a simple point - the PS2 requirements are going to exclude a lot of folks like the TSW requirements did. The two developers are out of touch with where the gamers are...as far as min requirements.
Same on the CPU side - they're all pretty much 2.0GHz dual cores - but TSW's asking 2.6GHz and PS2's asking 3.0GHz. I mean, that's pretty straightforward - so I'm not sure where the confusion's coming from... edit: And as I said earlier, people will often get confused by that number in the front. Consider the HD 4850 and the HD 7750. Yes, the 7750 is DX11, OpenGL 4.2, SM 5.0 compared to the DX10.1, OpenGL 2.1, and SM 4.1 of the 4850... but it's barely better than the 4850...63v72 GB/s bandwidth, 10000 vs 12800 Pixel, and 25000 vs 25680 Texture. The 4850 actually sports 1000 GFLOPS to the 7750's 820 GFLOPS. Course, if you move up to the 7850 from the 7750... yes, it eats the 4850. Course you're paying twice as much for that 7850 as the 7750... I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again? Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20% |
|
|
9/21/12 7:04:28 AM#17
I can run it on high with a GTX 470 , i5 PCU and 4 GBs with no hitchs.
Not bad considering my gig is nearly 4 years old.
|
|
|
9/21/12 12:24:34 PM#18
Originally posted by VirusDancer You seem to be completely missing the point. The problem is that they list two cards that aren't remotely comparable. It's kind of like a game releasing with specs saying it requires a Radeon HD 7870 or 6450 or equivalent. If you've got a card that performs somewhere in the vast chasm between those two without being terribly close to either, they've told you both that it's way over the required specs, and also that it's way below them and you shouldn't bother trying to run the game. You can argue that a Radeon HD 4850 is somewhat high end, as it was $200 at launch--and a great value at that price. But a GeForce 8600 anything was never high end, and by the end of 2008, it was quite a stretch to call it even a budget gaming card. The recommended specs were worse than the minimum, too. Why list a Phenom II X6 as if to imply that a Phenom II X4 isn't good enough, unless the game really can put those last two cores to good use? And if it really does need six cores, there isn't much chance of it being playable on two as in the minimum specs. And why GeForce 500 series or later, as if to exclude the 400 series, when the 500 series is nothing more than a respin of the 400 series. That would be like saying that if you have a Core i7-920 with the D0 stepping, it's good enough, but if it's the C0 stepping it isn't, even though they perform the same. |
|
|
9/21/12 12:25:58 PM#19
Originally posted by Krytycal You've had that hardware for nearly four years? That's interesting when you consider that the first motherboards that could take a Core i5 processor launched about three years ago, and the GTX 470 less than 2 1/2 years ago. |
|
|
9/21/12 12:30:36 PM#20
guys remember also one thing, they will launch thing who use top notch computers and force most of you to buy a new one, capitalism at his best, make things to force you spend even more on other things.
also note japanese devs always like to launch game with high grade specs for it take a little longer to look old. complaining about it will not make then stop doing it, only way is wait and see if you will play at launch or just when you feel like to upgrade FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money. |
|
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 21, 2013 9:51 PM
- Page Created in 0.749 seconds -
