Anything SOE makes has a stamp of fail on it in my eyes.

Everquest 2 ran like crap when it was launched on top of the line machines (at that time).  Here we are many.. MANY years later and it runs "ok" on a top of the line machine. 

I guess i'll give the EQ2 team a little credit.  I believe they designed that game during the single core era and they expected that we would continue to design faster single core processors.  Sadly for them the industry took another route and started pumping out multi-core systems.

Bla bla bla...

Originally posted by Vhaln
This is a game that really thrives with lots of players being rendered onscreen at the same time.  From reports I've seen, such as previews by TotalBiscuit.. it just isn't doing that well.  It's not just about people with crappy old computers.  It's not even doing that well on the latest hardware.

 Runs very very well for myself and afew of my friends systems on max settings right now with hardly a dip in the FPS Pool.

Some people just need to upgrade their systems is all, can't exspect to have hardware that is 6-7 years old run a modern game, and most likely those people try to run the game on max settings even though their systems can't handle it and wonder why they experience crappy FPS, but when they turn it down it looks ok but not as nice so they will moan and complain about the engine not being optimized properly, however there are some games out there that have poor optimization , Example , EQ2 .

My personal vieuw is that no matter how you look at the choice for developers to choose 1 brand the other brand gets shafted, and with it all the potential players owning (in this case) a Ati card.

Nvidia try's hard to fish the biggest releases while AMD gets left behind in most of the cases when tripple A games are released.

I think its bad, and it has to be equal.

Ati and Nvidia needs to be present with any AAA game to smooth out the gameplay.

Nothing worse then buying 2x 680's sli to see your fps is crap
Nothing worse then buying 2x 7970 crossfire to see your fps is crap

Drivers needs to be optimised no matter what brand you buy.
I even want to go so far that it needs to be punished by law or by our wallet.

---

Originally posted by Aeolron

---

Originally posted by TeknoBug In the past few years, games has been released with realistic specs but when installing and running the game it says a different story, Crysis needed a beefy system (and even then a $4000 beefed up PC couldn't run it at max). Devs should start reading the hardware census from Steam, there's a surprising amount of people still gaming on a 2core CPU and 4GB ram, etc.

---

 More and more games now for the PC and starting to get into the quad core stuff and if you look at the specs for BF3 it is actualy higher then PS2 and yet , a TON of players play BF3 seems my system can handly PS2 with no issues what so ever, my specs

 

Windows 7

AMD 8150 CPU

Asus GTX 670

12 gigs of ram

1 Terabyte mechanical hard drive

1000 wat power

Asus Sabertooth Main board

you don't need a $4000 system, hell even with a budget of 1200 bucks you could run this game no problem, what I do find funny is Everquest 2 runs like shit on my system but planet side 2 runs very very smooth even in huge battles with max settings I get 60-70 FPS.

Game studios can't always hold back on their progress because of afew people who won't upgrade their systems, I can understand where your coming from if you don't have the money , but it can be said if you don't have the money why would you buy more games in the first place that you can barely run because of your system specs?

---

I remember Vanguard and Age of Conan playing horribly even on newer PCs when they came out, even GTA4 ran like crap. Guild Wars 2 seems to be where that is now, the halloween patches made things worse but hopefully they'll come around to fixing the performance issues because right now it isn't touching the GPU anymore (used to before the October patches).