Why would anyone worry about this game? I mean not to be mean but how many Mac's will really be able to play it? It is a system resource pig and runs like crap on even very fast PC's.
My PC can barely run it tolerably at it is a Duron 1300 with 512 DDR ram and a Radeon 9000 with 64 megs of RAM. I doubt it would run well unless optimized for duel processors and even then would likely require a duel 800 minimum with Geforce 2mx card to be barely tolerable.
The Mac community should find and adopt a cheap and fun game we can all rally around and that just about everyone can play. Even the original UT runs like crap in OS X. Perhaps Jedi Knight II, Sin or something like that...
I saw it run fine on someone's PC..I forget specs, 1.x ghz, 512 RAM, GeForce 2 or 4 or something. So wouldn't it run fine on my PBG412"? The UT2k3 graphics really aren't that much better than UT Tournament. UT is the best shooter.
<strong>My PC can barely run it tolerably at it is a Duron 1300 with 512 DDR ram and a Radeon 9000 with 64 megs of RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just read a game performance comparison on PCs. The Celeron/Durons were the worst regarding game performance: In UT2003 ca. 25 fps. Pentiums/Athlons were quite a bit better. UT is more processor than graphics card bound.
What do you expect? Until Apple increases its market share significantly, Mac gaming support is not going to improve. When you have to rely on small, third party companies to port games over from the PC, of course there are going to be very few titles and lots of delays. I'm not trying to knock on Aspyr, MacPlay, or other publishers; Without them, there would be no Mac games. It's just the market for Mac games is so small, these companies can't afford to hire the number of people necessary to get these games published within a month of the PC release. If there were more Mac users out there buying games, development times would shorten. Of course, what I would really like to see is more PC developers doing Mac versions of their games in-house, like Blizzard and id. Apple will need to sell a lot more Macs first. Right now, a Mac game is considered successful if it sells 10,000 copies. That number needs to hit 100,000 before more PC game companies will look at the Mac seriously.
<strong>Why would anyone worry about this game? I mean not to be mean but how many Mac's will really be able to play it? It is a system resource pig and runs like crap on even very fast PC's.
My PC can barely run it tolerably at it is a Duron 1300 with 512 DDR ram and a Radeon 9000 with 64 megs of RAM. I doubt it would run well unless optimized for duel processors and even then would likely require a duel 800 minimum with Geforce 2mx card to be barely tolerable.
The Mac community should find and adopt a cheap and fun game we can all rally around and that just about everyone can play. Even the original UT runs like crap in OS X. Perhaps Jedi Knight II, Sin or something like that...
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha u use a duron...perhaps u'd like a 604ev SE running at 1ghz compared to a G4?
haha sorry but i'm not sure why you'd buy a weak processor like that (good for laptops though...or is that the celeron)
So will it use AltiVec? I hope it'll run on my PBG4 12". UT is the best shooter out there, easy to learn how to play, and good for a quick fix. Games like WarCraft take a while to get good at and require thinking...that is painful in college.
Seriously though, anyone know if Command and Conquer Generals will come to Mac? WOW that game is awesome on my roommate's new Dell with a GeForce 4.
haha u use a duron...perhaps u'd like a 604ev SE running at 1ghz compared to a G4?
haha sorry but i'm not sure why you'd buy a weak processor like that (good for laptops though...or is that the celeron)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I bought it in a deal with the motherboard. I got both of them for a cheap upgrade for like...$109 or something of that nature.
Durons are slower than Athlons but still have the same FPU, etc. They just have a slightly smaller cache and run at 200 mhz fsb instead of 266.
So a Duron 1300 is probably the same as an Athlon 1100. If I told you the game was a dog on an Athlon 1100, what would make you think it would run well a a single G4@733?
What no one here has mentioned is that the minimum processor on the PC side is 750 mhz. I played it with an 850 mhz PIII and Geforce2GTS card (before I cheaply upgraded) and it still played slow.
Please understand that minimum specs are not playable. Anyone here remember that the minimum specs on UT were a 603e@240 mhz? Hahahahah trying finding a machine that got over like 15-18 fps with that processor.
While the G4 has an incredible vector unit, the FPS is weaker than even the Duron. It will likely require a minimum 733 with GF2mx and will run it at 20-24 fps with all eye candy off. (at 640x480)
My friend has a 2.4 Ghz P4 with a GeForce Ti 4200 with 64 megs of ram in it, although he only had 256 mb of ram (he spent all his money on his processor
At any rate, the game looked great(on high settings) and had decent frame rates but it jumped quite a bit, stalling for a split second before continuing.
Im sure ram is going to play a large part in frame rates, but nevertheless, have you ever seen a game that runs as fast as its Windows counterpart? With that said, I think the game should be playable with decent quality settings for machines that are relatively new. But heres to hoping...
I really don't care... that game looks pretty dumb anyway. I've played it before (don't remember what computer it was), and it wasn't nearly as fun as either Quake III or the original Unreal Tournament. Quake III has really silly looking graphics, but it's really fun to play. UT isn't as fun to play but the graphics are much better. UT 2k3 seems to be a combination of the two... it's not as fun to play as either of the older games, but the graphics look silly and dumb like Quake III (not to say they aren't spectacular, they just look kinda cartoon-like). I far prefer the original UT to UT2003. That's just my opinion of course, I don't know about what other people think but my brother basically feels the same way.
I'd much rather have Halo. Now THAT is a well designed game that doesn't rely on flying body parts and guts to make it interesting. There's so much more diverse gameplay in Halo, especially when fighting as a team.
I don't think Jedi Knight II is designed to run very well on Macs... it's one of the games that not only isn't optimized for the G4 or SMP (only Quake III is as far as I know), but it doesn't even care much about your graphics card. I heard it basically only takes processor speed into account. Not sure on that, but when the one thing you can control on the Mac is the graphics card, processor-intensive games aren't that appealing.
<strong>I saw it run fine on someone's PC..I forget specs, 1.x ghz, 512 RAM, GeForce 2 or 4 or something. So wouldn't it run fine on my PBG412"? The UT2k3 graphics really aren't that much better than UT Tournament. UT is the best shooter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I'd much rather have Halo. Now THAT is a well designed game that doesn't rely on flying body parts and guts to make it interesting. There's so much more diverse gameplay in Halo, especially when fighting as a team.
I don't think Jedi Knight II is designed to run very well on Macs... it's one of the games that not only isn't optimized for the G4 or SMP (only Quake III is as far as I know), but it doesn't even care much about your graphics card. I heard it basically only takes processor speed into account. Not sure on that, but when the one thing you can control on the Mac is the graphics card, processor-intensive games aren't that appealing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Halo is coming.
2. Q3 wasn't optomized for the G4, I'm assuming you mean altivec by this. And its SMP isn't, Giants is the only 'big' game that supports SMP, and that's mostly because omni group is just so damn smoove.
3. JKII doesn't care about your graphics card? It's built on the Q3 engine. So JKII isn't optomized for Mac's, but Q3 is? Even though they're using the same engine? Albeit heavily modified for JKII.
4. I'll agree, UT2K3 was a bet of a let down, except for bombing run. Then again I'm more of a Ghost Recon kind of guy, I'd like it if MOH:AA played more like GR.
Mmm, I was sorely disappointed at UT2k3, don't really care if it comes out for Mac or not. Doesn't have the charm that UT had. I'm more into MOHAA... actually got back into Marathon with Aleph One's internet support. No other game quite gets it like how Marathon did.
[quote] So a Duron 1300 is probably the same as an Athlon 1100. If I told you the game was a dog on an Athlon 1100, what would make you think it would run well a a single G4@733? <hr></blockquote>
Where the hell did you get those crooked conversions?
Comments
<a href="http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ArticleID=6230"; target="_blank">Mac UT2003 Date; Westalke Responds, September 10, 2002</a>
They were aiming for a Christmas release, but obviously that didn't make it. I expect it in the next few months.
You all liking that Halo action on your mac? Great huh?
anybody?
<strong>
<a href="http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ArticleID=6230"; target="_blank">Mac UT2003 Date; Westalke Responds, September 10, 2002</a>
They were aiming for a Christmas release, but obviously that didn't make it. I expect it in the next few months.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My PC can barely run it tolerably at it is a Duron 1300 with 512 DDR ram and a Radeon 9000 with 64 megs of RAM. I doubt it would run well unless optimized for duel processors and even then would likely require a duel 800 minimum with Geforce 2mx card to be barely tolerable.
The Mac community should find and adopt a cheap and fun game we can all rally around and that just about everyone can play. Even the original UT runs like crap in OS X. Perhaps Jedi Knight II, Sin or something like that...
Nick
<strong>My PC can barely run it tolerably at it is a Duron 1300 with 512 DDR ram and a Radeon 9000 with 64 megs of RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just read a game performance comparison on PCs. The Celeron/Durons were the worst regarding game performance: In UT2003 ca. 25 fps. Pentiums/Athlons were quite a bit better. UT is more processor than graphics card bound.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>
<strong>Why would anyone worry about this game? I mean not to be mean but how many Mac's will really be able to play it? It is a system resource pig and runs like crap on even very fast PC's.
My PC can barely run it tolerably at it is a Duron 1300 with 512 DDR ram and a Radeon 9000 with 64 megs of RAM. I doubt it would run well unless optimized for duel processors and even then would likely require a duel 800 minimum with Geforce 2mx card to be barely tolerable.
The Mac community should find and adopt a cheap and fun game we can all rally around and that just about everyone can play. Even the original UT runs like crap in OS X. Perhaps Jedi Knight II, Sin or something like that...
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha u use a duron...perhaps u'd like a 604ev SE running at 1ghz compared to a G4?
haha sorry but i'm not sure why you'd buy a weak processor like that (good for laptops though...or is that the celeron)
Seriously though, anyone know if Command and Conquer Generals will come to Mac? WOW that game is awesome on my roommate's new Dell with a GeForce 4.
<strong>
haha u use a duron...perhaps u'd like a 604ev SE running at 1ghz compared to a G4?
haha sorry but i'm not sure why you'd buy a weak processor like that (good for laptops though...or is that the celeron)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I bought it in a deal with the motherboard. I got both of them for a cheap upgrade for like...$109 or something of that nature.
Durons are slower than Athlons but still have the same FPU, etc. They just have a slightly smaller cache and run at 200 mhz fsb instead of 266.
So a Duron 1300 is probably the same as an Athlon 1100. If I told you the game was a dog on an Athlon 1100, what would make you think it would run well a a single G4@733?
What no one here has mentioned is that the minimum processor on the PC side is 750 mhz. I played it with an 850 mhz PIII and Geforce2GTS card (before I cheaply upgraded) and it still played slow.
Please understand that minimum specs are not playable. Anyone here remember that the minimum specs on UT were a 603e@240 mhz? Hahahahah trying finding a machine that got over like 15-18 fps with that processor.
While the G4 has an incredible vector unit, the FPS is weaker than even the Duron. It will likely require a minimum 733 with GF2mx and will run it at 20-24 fps with all eye candy off. (at 640x480)
Nick
My friend has a 2.4 Ghz P4 with a GeForce Ti 4200 with 64 megs of ram in it, although he only had 256 mb of ram (he spent all his money on his processor
At any rate, the game looked great(on high settings) and had decent frame rates but it jumped quite a bit, stalling for a split second before continuing.
Im sure ram is going to play a large part in frame rates, but nevertheless, have you ever seen a game that runs as fast as its Windows counterpart? With that said, I think the game should be playable with decent quality settings for machines that are relatively new. But heres to hoping...
I'd much rather have Halo. Now THAT is a well designed game that doesn't rely on flying body parts and guts to make it interesting. There's so much more diverse gameplay in Halo, especially when fighting as a team.
I don't think Jedi Knight II is designed to run very well on Macs... it's one of the games that not only isn't optimized for the G4 or SMP (only Quake III is as far as I know), but it doesn't even care much about your graphics card. I heard it basically only takes processor speed into account. Not sure on that, but when the one thing you can control on the Mac is the graphics card, processor-intensive games aren't that appealing.
<strong>I saw it run fine on someone's PC..I forget specs, 1.x ghz, 512 RAM, GeForce 2 or 4 or something. So wouldn't it run fine on my PBG412"? The UT2k3 graphics really aren't that much better than UT Tournament. UT is the best shooter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Sorry to burst your bubble, the 12" would choke on it.
I'm sure you could drop all the grfx settings and it would run acceptably though.
<strong>I'd much rather have Halo. Now THAT is a well designed game that doesn't rely on flying body parts and guts to make it interesting. There's so much more diverse gameplay in Halo, especially when fighting as a team.
I don't think Jedi Knight II is designed to run very well on Macs... it's one of the games that not only isn't optimized for the G4 or SMP (only Quake III is as far as I know), but it doesn't even care much about your graphics card. I heard it basically only takes processor speed into account. Not sure on that, but when the one thing you can control on the Mac is the graphics card, processor-intensive games aren't that appealing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Halo is coming.
2. Q3 wasn't optomized for the G4, I'm assuming you mean altivec by this. And its SMP isn't, Giants is the only 'big' game that supports SMP, and that's mostly because omni group is just so damn smoove.
3. JKII doesn't care about your graphics card? It's built on the Q3 engine. So JKII isn't optomized for Mac's, but Q3 is? Even though they're using the same engine? Albeit heavily modified for JKII.
4. I'll agree, UT2K3 was a bet of a let down, except for bombing run. Then again I'm more of a Ghost Recon kind of guy, I'd like it if MOH:AA played more like GR.
Where the hell did you get those crooked conversions?
Nothing beats going around with a shotty to make people mad then opening a can with the mauser.