Those are the games he listed. Pick different ones.
I finished single player of World in Conflict on medium on the 7300GT. The ATI HD 2K series sucks but the 2400XT should be on par. Don't have one to test so I'll try it on my old X1600 but I bet it at least runs in low. I was running medium.
The 2400XT can pretty much run Oblivion at 1024x768. Need for Speed: Carbon has it struggling. It does far worse in Company of Heroes. I can't find 1024x768, all effects off Bioshock benches now but I suspect it'd be somewhat painful to play.
All those are games I think you can expect someone to grab off the store shelf. It seems the 2400XT is not quite as bad as I thought, and by all means if you have one you can play a lot of existing stuff with it, but the verdict stands: too weak to be advertised for gaming. Games in spring will kill it. The 2600Pro would be okay for now. It'll probably struggle in spring like the 2400XT does now, but at least it could run them.
Quote:
Except that on the PC the hardcore is differentiated by the level of hardware they have.
Here's some real life counterexamples: one guy I know who held nation's #3 or so Starcraft spot and had a then old computer, and my neighbor playing insanely complicated and difficult strategy games on an old computer. These guys are hardcore players period.
On the other hand, I see casual players on arstechnica and other sites that like to play a little fps or WoW now and then, don't sink a lot of time in that, aren't necessarily very good at those games, but have a Geforce 8800GTX ticking alongside a watercooled quad Conroe. Because they like machines, overclocking, running pifast (!!!). Being a hardcore player not required.
Quote:
And the 2400XT is about par for what the casual player has right? Its a lower middle of the pack chip. Other than ATI/AMD suckage at the moment the older iMacs were middle of the pack at the time as well.
ATI/AMD suckage is no excuse. If they can't make parts, Apple shouldn't buy them. It really is that simple.
Quote:
When Oblivion came out no "casual" gaming PC was going to run that sucker with 20 FPS. The X1600 is fine for current games at low settings on any but the most hardcore engines.
Sometimes a game that has freaky hardware requirements comes out. Oblivion was one of those games. There's nothing particularly "hardcore" about it as a game - it was released for the 360 right? - but it takes a while for average graphics cards to catch up to these things. I don't know of a particularly problematic game right now.
The 20 minimum fps limit was probably too strict. It really depends on the game and the player, too - WoW for instance gets pretty decent average framerates on GMA 950, but is unplayable because it fails where you most need the frames. Usually single player doesn't need as much as multiplayer.
In fact, when I wanted to play games, I bought a console - not a PC. PCs are ridiculously expensive if you are just going to use it for playing games. And I use my Mac for everything else a PC can do.
Not only that but you're always having to upgrade your machine in order to buy the newer titles. It's frustrating and I gave up and got a PS 2.
Not only that but you're always having to upgrade your machine in order to buy the newer titles. It's frustrating and I gave up and got a PS 2.
If you start out with a decent machine it will play games just fine for 2-3 years. Then you can upgrade it. The sad fact is that PC gaming innovation far outpaces consoles.
Let's see if I can spell it out for everyone the best I can.
TO PLAY PC GAMES YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE LATEST AND GREATEST HARDWARE. MANY EXISTING GAMERS DO NOT HAVE THE BEST OUT THERE AND PLAY JUST FINE.
It seems the 2400XT is not quite as bad as I thought, and by all means if you have one you can play a lot of existing stuff with it, but the verdict stands: too weak to be advertised for gaming.
Well the 2400 in the iMac I thought was clocked lower than the one in the review. So it could be as bad as you thought.
Quote:
Games in spring will kill it. The 2600Pro would be okay for now. It'll probably struggle in spring like the 2400XT does now, but at least it could run them.
I assume, having not actually looked closely at the benches, that it will do far better than my X1600. I consider the MBP adequate for gaming for the next couple years. Far better than my 4 year old P4 Dell with GeForce 5700LE. I think it's a 5700 anyway...haven't booted it in a year.
Quote:
Here's some real life counterexamples: one guy I know who held nation's #3 or so Starcraft spot and had a then old computer, and my neighbor playing insanely complicated and difficult strategy games on an old computer. These guys are hardcore players period.
Well arguably I play complicated and difficult strategy games (Hearts of Iron, etc) but I don't call that hardcore as much as...old school.
#3 on Starcraft is impressive and hardcore but I'm going to guess you can likely do okay with the equivalent RTS on an iMac today.
So say I agree with your statement about hardcore vs casual players...would you not say that a current generation iMac is as good as an "old computer"?
Quote:
ATI/AMD suckage is no excuse. If they can't make parts, Apple shouldn't buy them. It really is that simple.
It's that simple from where we sit. It may not be so simple from where Apple sits. I really don't think they went out of their way to neuter the new iMacs for games. Why they when with AMD this go around amazes me but neither you or I are privy to why such a bad decision was made.
Oh, and if we're going to talk suckage the Nvidia FX series was also in that "suckage" category. The GeForce 4 was arguably better at the same level (Ti 4200 > 5600, MX440 > FX5200) and yet there were a bunch of systems built out there with those cards.
Quote:
The 20 minimum fps limit was probably too strict. It really depends on the game and the player, too - WoW for instance gets pretty decent average framerates on GMA 950, but is unplayable because it fails where you most need the frames. Usually single player doesn't need as much as multiplayer.
Sure...if I were playing WiC mulitplayer it would be on vlow settings with the highest resolution I could manage that kept a very high min fps. But hey, if I wanted to be pwned I could play tennis with my wife.
WoW won't play well on the 950 but the iMacs and MBP will do fine. If the MacBook and mini goto the X3100 it likely would run WoW good enough to play.
Surprisingly I don't disagree. Halo 2 was extremely rushed....Halo 3, there was room for improvement with time.
I rented Stubbs, wasn't too impressed. I'd love to see Seropian and Jones get back together again....who knows, maybe it was that mix of minds that made their games so great.
And I can sadly say I have not played through all of the Marathon games, so I can't say about overall storyline, but yes, the storyline on those games did seem better.
However, I still believe that by any standard the Halo games are some of the best games ever made, especially with the advancements in Multiplayer and the revolutionary control scheme for a console FPS (ie. one that worked).
Did you guys read the cover piece on Halo3 in WIRED magazine? The guys all said Halo2 was rushed and they really weren't happy with it. It was a great article about how Bungie was developing Halo3.
I love when people say that. You'd be surprised at the huge variety of people you will find in an MMO. Is hardcore 7 nights a week raiding for the super nerds? Ya, for the most part. But the majority of people, in my estimation, just enjoy playing a game that has somebody else on the other end of it. Most of the game time is spent socializing over voice chat. It's more fun, casual, and normal than most people think.
As for the people telling us to grow up and stop playing games: Do you watch TV? Maybe follow an NFL team? Race cars? Work on your car on the weekend? Build things? Models maybe? GROW UP and start doing something worthwhile with your time! See? It's the same stupid, inflammatory argument either way, and you should be intelligent enough to understand that people like to enjoy their free time in different ways. Just because you don't like their choice is no reason to flame them.
Now, back to Macs and gaming. If Apple were ever to listen to it's customers and release a mini tower design with a single upgradable GPU slot, it would be a potential gamers paradise. CPUs stay good for a few years, GPUs do not. It would allow for the necessary upgrading that gamers need, which is mainly the GPU, without the added expense of a Mac Pro. Will we ever see one? Perhaps not, but I really wish we would.
You know, I was just poking fun, it's not a flame, more like a nudge and a smile.
Being a hardcore gamer already means you're a nerd to some degree. I game all the time, but i can't understand games where there is no end to it. I don't mean arcade games where you play for points, but endless games with no A or B. Just countless hours of tedium.
not my cup of tea and I'll probably never understand the phenomenon
You know, I was just poking fun, it's not a flame, more like a nudge and a smile.
Being a hardcore gamer already means you're a nerd to some degree. I game all the time, but i can't understand games where there is no end to it. I don't mean arcade games where you play for points, but endless games with no A or B. Just countless hours of tedium.
not my cup of tea and I'll probably never understand the phenomenon
Alright then. Us MMO players are used to taking flak, I guess. Makes you kind of defensive.
If you start out with a decent machine it will play games just fine for 2-3 years. Then you can upgrade it. The sad fact is that PC gaming innovation far outpaces consoles.
Let's see if I can spell it out for everyone the best I can.
TO PLAY PC GAMES YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE LATEST AND GREATEST HARDWARE. MANY EXISTING GAMERS DO NOT HAVE THE BEST OUT THERE AND PLAY JUST FINE.
I guess a lot depends upon a person's definition of 'decent' machine. Three years ago I bought an HP machine for my wife and kids to use. It has a 2 ghz Athlon chip and an nvidia ge force go video card with 64 mb of memeory (not sure the exact card part number, I'm at work and the machine is at home). At the time that was a 'decent' machine IMO. It wasn't a bargain basement entry level machine, it cost about $1200. Certainly it wasn't a "god" machine but 'decent' for that time IMO.
Not many new games can be played on it. It seems like a games that are 2 years old or older are the only ones that can be reliably played on it. I bought a FPS WW2 game(can't remember which one) and although my computer had acceptable specs for playing it, I was never able to load it and play. It would crash after loading.
PC gaming for me has always been frustrating and unpredictable. While COD 1 and Spiderman 1 seem to play well on my computer other games don't and it's difficult for me to predict what games will work on my computer and what won't.
With a PS 2, I've not had any of those problems. Pop it in and it just works.
I guess a lot depends upon a person's definition of 'decent' machine. Three years ago I bought an HP machine for my wife and kids to use. It has a 2 ghz Athlon chip and an nvidia ge force go video card with 64 mb of memeory (not sure the exact card part number, I'm at work and the machine is at home). At the time that was a 'decent' machine IMO. It wasn't a bargain basement entry level machine, it cost about $1200. Certainly it wasn't a "god" machine but 'decent' for that time IMO.
...
With a PS 2, I've not had any of those problems. Pop it in and it just works.
The problem with that is you bought a machine with a very weak graphics card in the first place. You can spend upwards of 2-3k on a business machine that doesn't have a great graphics card. If you wanted to compare what your machine has now to what is on the market, that's like saying you bought a computer today with a x1300. Had you cut a corner and got a better graphics card, or just upgraded the graphics card in the first place, it'd be FINE. But you can't start out with a weak graphics card. The CPU would do fine though.
And btw a lot of gaming companies and breathing down HP, Dell, Gatewate, Lenova, etc, trying to get them to stop putting such horrible cards in their machines that cost that much. I know it's a hiccup, but the rest of the hardware in that machine would do fine... even if you put a 75 dollar graphics card in it.
Comments
Those are the games he listed. Pick different ones.
I finished single player of World in Conflict on medium on the 7300GT. The ATI HD 2K series sucks but the 2400XT should be on par. Don't have one to test so I'll try it on my old X1600 but I bet it at least runs in low. I was running medium.
WIC is hardly a wimp when it comes to graphics.
Let's see here for instance:
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/ind...=449&Itemid=27
The 2400XT can pretty much run Oblivion at 1024x768. Need for Speed: Carbon has it struggling. It does far worse in Company of Heroes. I can't find 1024x768, all effects off Bioshock benches now but I suspect it'd be somewhat painful to play.
All those are games I think you can expect someone to grab off the store shelf. It seems the 2400XT is not quite as bad as I thought, and by all means if you have one you can play a lot of existing stuff with it, but the verdict stands: too weak to be advertised for gaming. Games in spring will kill it. The 2600Pro would be okay for now. It'll probably struggle in spring like the 2400XT does now, but at least it could run them.
Except that on the PC the hardcore is differentiated by the level of hardware they have.
Here's some real life counterexamples: one guy I know who held nation's #3 or so Starcraft spot and had a then old computer, and my neighbor playing insanely complicated and difficult strategy games on an old computer. These guys are hardcore players period.
On the other hand, I see casual players on arstechnica and other sites that like to play a little fps or WoW now and then, don't sink a lot of time in that, aren't necessarily very good at those games, but have a Geforce 8800GTX ticking alongside a watercooled quad Conroe. Because they like machines, overclocking, running pifast (!!!). Being a hardcore player not required.
And the 2400XT is about par for what the casual player has right? Its a lower middle of the pack chip. Other than ATI/AMD suckage at the moment the older iMacs were middle of the pack at the time as well.
ATI/AMD suckage is no excuse. If they can't make parts, Apple shouldn't buy them. It really is that simple.
When Oblivion came out no "casual" gaming PC was going to run that sucker with 20 FPS. The X1600 is fine for current games at low settings on any but the most hardcore engines.
Sometimes a game that has freaky hardware requirements comes out. Oblivion was one of those games. There's nothing particularly "hardcore" about it as a game - it was released for the 360 right?
The 20 minimum fps limit was probably too strict. It really depends on the game and the player, too - WoW for instance gets pretty decent average framerates on GMA 950, but is unplayable because it fails where you most need the frames. Usually single player doesn't need as much as multiplayer.
In fact, when I wanted to play games, I bought a console - not a PC. PCs are ridiculously expensive if you are just going to use it for playing games. And I use my Mac for everything else a PC can do.
Not only that but you're always having to upgrade your machine in order to buy the newer titles. It's frustrating and I gave up and got a PS 2.
Not only that but you're always having to upgrade your machine in order to buy the newer titles. It's frustrating and I gave up and got a PS 2.
If you start out with a decent machine it will play games just fine for 2-3 years. Then you can upgrade it. The sad fact is that PC gaming innovation far outpaces consoles.
Let's see if I can spell it out for everyone the best I can.
TO PLAY PC GAMES YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE LATEST AND GREATEST HARDWARE. MANY EXISTING GAMERS DO NOT HAVE THE BEST OUT THERE AND PLAY JUST FINE.
Let's see here for instance:
It seems the 2400XT is not quite as bad as I thought, and by all means if you have one you can play a lot of existing stuff with it, but the verdict stands: too weak to be advertised for gaming.
Well the 2400 in the iMac I thought was clocked lower than the one in the review. So it could be as bad as you thought.
Games in spring will kill it. The 2600Pro would be okay for now. It'll probably struggle in spring like the 2400XT does now, but at least it could run them.
I assume, having not actually looked closely at the benches, that it will do far better than my X1600. I consider the MBP adequate for gaming for the next couple years. Far better than my 4 year old P4 Dell with GeForce 5700LE. I think it's a 5700 anyway...haven't booted it in a year.
Here's some real life counterexamples: one guy I know who held nation's #3 or so Starcraft spot and had a then old computer, and my neighbor playing insanely complicated and difficult strategy games on an old computer. These guys are hardcore players period.
Well arguably I play complicated and difficult strategy games (Hearts of Iron, etc) but I don't call that hardcore as much as...old school.
#3 on Starcraft is impressive and hardcore but I'm going to guess you can likely do okay with the equivalent RTS on an iMac today.
So say I agree with your statement about hardcore vs casual players...would you not say that a current generation iMac is as good as an "old computer"?
ATI/AMD suckage is no excuse. If they can't make parts, Apple shouldn't buy them. It really is that simple.
It's that simple from where we sit. It may not be so simple from where Apple sits. I really don't think they went out of their way to neuter the new iMacs for games. Why they when with AMD this go around amazes me but neither you or I are privy to why such a bad decision was made.
Oh, and if we're going to talk suckage the Nvidia FX series was also in that "suckage" category. The GeForce 4 was arguably better at the same level (Ti 4200 > 5600, MX440 > FX5200) and yet there were a bunch of systems built out there with those cards.
The 20 minimum fps limit was probably too strict. It really depends on the game and the player, too - WoW for instance gets pretty decent average framerates on GMA 950, but is unplayable because it fails where you most need the frames. Usually single player doesn't need as much as multiplayer.
Sure...if I were playing WiC mulitplayer it would be on vlow settings with the highest resolution I could manage that kept a very high min fps. But hey, if I wanted to be pwned I could play tennis with my wife.
WoW won't play well on the 950 but the iMacs and MBP will do fine. If the MacBook and mini goto the X3100 it likely would run WoW good enough to play.
Surprisingly I don't disagree. Halo 2 was extremely rushed....Halo 3, there was room for improvement with time.
I rented Stubbs, wasn't too impressed. I'd love to see Seropian and Jones get back together again....who knows, maybe it was that mix of minds that made their games so great.
And I can sadly say I have not played through all of the Marathon games, so I can't say about overall storyline, but yes, the storyline on those games did seem better.
However, I still believe that by any standard the Halo games are some of the best games ever made, especially with the advancements in Multiplayer and the revolutionary control scheme for a console FPS (ie. one that worked).
Did you guys read the cover piece on Halo3 in WIRED magazine? The guys all said Halo2 was rushed and they really weren't happy with it. It was a great article about how Bungie was developing Halo3.
I love when people say that. You'd be surprised at the huge variety of people you will find in an MMO. Is hardcore 7 nights a week raiding for the super nerds? Ya, for the most part. But the majority of people, in my estimation, just enjoy playing a game that has somebody else on the other end of it. Most of the game time is spent socializing over voice chat. It's more fun, casual, and normal than most people think.
As for the people telling us to grow up and stop playing games: Do you watch TV? Maybe follow an NFL team? Race cars? Work on your car on the weekend? Build things? Models maybe? GROW UP and start doing something worthwhile with your time! See? It's the same stupid, inflammatory argument either way, and you should be intelligent enough to understand that people like to enjoy their free time in different ways. Just because you don't like their choice is no reason to flame them.
Now, back to Macs and gaming. If Apple were ever to listen to it's customers and release a mini tower design with a single upgradable GPU slot, it would be a potential gamers paradise. CPUs stay good for a few years, GPUs do not. It would allow for the necessary upgrading that gamers need, which is mainly the GPU, without the added expense of a Mac Pro. Will we ever see one? Perhaps not, but I really wish we would.
You know, I was just poking fun, it's not a flame, more like a nudge and a smile.
Being a hardcore gamer already means you're a nerd to some degree. I game all the time, but i can't understand games where there is no end to it. I don't mean arcade games where you play for points, but endless games with no A or B. Just countless hours of tedium.
not my cup of tea and I'll probably never understand the phenomenon
You know, I was just poking fun, it's not a flame, more like a nudge and a smile.
Being a hardcore gamer already means you're a nerd to some degree. I game all the time, but i can't understand games where there is no end to it. I don't mean arcade games where you play for points, but endless games with no A or B. Just countless hours of tedium.
not my cup of tea and I'll probably never understand the phenomenon
Alright then. Us MMO players are used to taking flak, I guess. Makes you kind of defensive.
+1. Rare times when we're 100% on the same page for more than 1 post a day
I don't remember us disagreeing so much that we agree that rarely.
If you start out with a decent machine it will play games just fine for 2-3 years. Then you can upgrade it. The sad fact is that PC gaming innovation far outpaces consoles.
Let's see if I can spell it out for everyone the best I can.
TO PLAY PC GAMES YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE LATEST AND GREATEST HARDWARE. MANY EXISTING GAMERS DO NOT HAVE THE BEST OUT THERE AND PLAY JUST FINE.
I guess a lot depends upon a person's definition of 'decent' machine. Three years ago I bought an HP machine for my wife and kids to use. It has a 2 ghz Athlon chip and an nvidia ge force go video card with 64 mb of memeory (not sure the exact card part number, I'm at work and the machine is at home). At the time that was a 'decent' machine IMO. It wasn't a bargain basement entry level machine, it cost about $1200. Certainly it wasn't a "god" machine but 'decent' for that time IMO.
Not many new games can be played on it. It seems like a games that are 2 years old or older are the only ones that can be reliably played on it. I bought a FPS WW2 game(can't remember which one) and although my computer had acceptable specs for playing it, I was never able to load it and play. It would crash after loading.
PC gaming for me has always been frustrating and unpredictable. While COD 1 and Spiderman 1 seem to play well on my computer other games don't and it's difficult for me to predict what games will work on my computer and what won't.
With a PS 2, I've not had any of those problems. Pop it in and it just works.
I guess a lot depends upon a person's definition of 'decent' machine. Three years ago I bought an HP machine for my wife and kids to use. It has a 2 ghz Athlon chip and an nvidia ge force go video card with 64 mb of memeory (not sure the exact card part number, I'm at work and the machine is at home). At the time that was a 'decent' machine IMO. It wasn't a bargain basement entry level machine, it cost about $1200. Certainly it wasn't a "god" machine but 'decent' for that time IMO.
...
With a PS 2, I've not had any of those problems. Pop it in and it just works.
The problem with that is you bought a machine with a very weak graphics card in the first place. You can spend upwards of 2-3k on a business machine that doesn't have a great graphics card. If you wanted to compare what your machine has now to what is on the market, that's like saying you bought a computer today with a x1300. Had you cut a corner and got a better graphics card, or just upgraded the graphics card in the first place, it'd be FINE. But you can't start out with a weak graphics card. The CPU would do fine though.
And btw a lot of gaming companies and breathing down HP, Dell, Gatewate, Lenova, etc, trying to get them to stop putting such horrible cards in their machines that cost that much. I know it's a hiccup, but the rest of the hardware in that machine would do fine... even if you put a 75 dollar graphics card in it.
The rumor is not even confirmed and it wont be confirmed!
LOL... guess again, Sparky. Bungie has indeed flown the coop. Gonna cry now?
It's official: Bungie breaks free of Microsoft:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...microsoft.html
.