Gaming through boot camp...

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Will I be able to play current versions of PC games on a MBP through boot camp? Specifically, Command and Conquer (the first decade DVD), Age of Empires (II and III) and Homeworld 2?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SquireM

    Will I be able to play current versions of PC games on a MBP through boot camp? Specifically, Command and Conquer (the first decade DVD), Age of Empires (II and III) and Homeworld 2?



    Indeed. For all intents and purposes, Boot Camp turns your laptop into a true PC.
  • Reply 2 of 16
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    yup.
  • Reply 3 of 16
    artanisartanis Posts: 156member
    Some Mac fans are u guys.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artanis

    Some Mac fans are u guys.



    not sure what that means, but I'm sure a lot of us always use the best tool for the job. For me, playing Counterstrike requires Windows XP, a fast box and a smoking video card. For everything else, OS X on a Mac. Its all about what works best for the job at hand (or game).



    Counterstrike on a Boot Camped iMac is decent but not good enough for me (video card isn't quite top end). For others it might be just fine. YMMV.
  • Reply 5 of 16
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sandau

    ... I'm sure a lot of us always use the best tool for the job.



    Exactly.



    OSX at home. XP on my work desktop and linux on my work servers. None of the above on my cell phone. (YMMV)



    Oh... and XP for gaming.
  • Reply 6 of 16
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sandau

    not sure what that means, but I'm sure a lot of us always use the best tool for the job. For me, playing Counterstrike requires Windows XP, a fast box and a smoking video card. For everything else, OS X on a Mac. Its all about what works best for the job at hand (or game).



    Counterstrike on a Boot Camped iMac is decent but not good enough for me (video card isn't quite top end). For others it might be just fine. YMMV.




    I hope you're talking about Counterstrike: Source.... Because I remember playing Half-Life/Counterstrike on a GeForce256 (the first GeForce card from Nvidia) without any problems 5 or 6 years ago. It would seem rather sad if the current generation of video cards can't handle it.



    Edit:



    Even at that, I can play Half-Life 2 single player at 1680x1050 just fine on my Radeon 8500 LE that was $75 ~3 years ago. I find it hard to believe that the newer video cards have trouble with it. (Even if they have to deal with DX9 version of HL2)
  • Reply 7 of 16
    mattyjmattyj Posts: 898member
    Practically any graphics card you can buy now can handle HL2 with no problems. I even remember a X300 128MB card, which costs something like 50p, ran HL2 at high settings. What you need is a fast CPU coupled to that crap graphics card though.



    3Ghz P4 + X300 = HL2 smooth and with eyecandy

    Dual 2200 Opterons + Quadro 3000FX (basically a nVidia GeForce 5950) = medium settings and not smooth



    A good CPU makes all the difference.



    When Direct X 10 comes out though, you'll need a completely new set of graphics cards, certainly to run games such as Crysis - from the makers of Far Cry - which according to some has approached not just photorealism, but also "videorealism" as in the animation is up to the same standard as the graphics.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pyr3

    Even at that, I can play Half-Life 2 single player at 1680x1050 just fine on my Radeon 8500 LE that was $75 ~3 years ago. I find it hard to believe that the newer video cards have trouble with it. (Even if they have to deal with DX9 version of HL2)



    Its all about having 40-110fps in online games with everything maxxed out which is what I do on a 20.1" widescreen. your card couldn't handle that at 640x480 unfortunately, and the high end options are likely turned off. I consider myself lucky to have good hardware.
  • Reply 9 of 16
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    People always like to banter on and on about frame rates, but is there even any point at going beyond 60fps? Most people can't discern beyond 30fps. With that said. . . I find it hard to believe that a Core Duo iMac couldn't rock at Counterstrike.



    Lastly, I thought everyone had switched to Battlefield by now. . . and I've seen that choke on some top-of-the-line rigs.
  • Reply 10 of 16
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sandau

    Its all about having 40-110fps in online games with everything maxxed out which is what I do on a 20.1" widescreen. your card couldn't handle that at 640x480 unfortunately, and the high end options are likely turned off. I consider myself lucky to have good hardware.



    1680x1050 is a 20.1" widescreen (Dell 2005FPW). Maybe not with all the settings maxed out, but I can play with most of the settings either on 'high' or 'medium.' And as far as I've heard the only difference in upping to DX9 is the reflections in the water surface, basically. Of course, I don't have any AA turned on, but none of that is necessary to play the game. Maybe *you* like to play at 200fps with 16xFAA, but not everyone deems that necessary to the game experience. When giving people advice, be more specific with what you mean by "I've had trouble with counter strike." The person asking my be perfectly fine playing at lower setting levels as long as the game is playable at all. I'm not trying to rip on you, but realize that he might assume that you mean counter strike is completely unplayable on any settings level.
  • Reply 11 of 16
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pyr3

    Of course, I don't have any AA turned on, but none of that is necessary to play the game.



    right, that's the point. what some people think is 'good enough' isn't 'good enough' for others. I simply prefer and am able to max it out, it looks fabulous and plays well. No frustration with choke, ping, or fps problems, its all about skills....which I seem to be losing more as I get older...lol.



    also, if you are able to get beyond 1280x800 on your 2005fpw, i'd like to know how. I simply don't have the option in CS:S.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sandau

    also, if you are able to get beyond 1280x800 on your 2005fpw, i'd like to know how. I simply don't have the option in CS:S.



    I don't know. There is an option in HL2 for me. I haven't played CS:Source, but since it's still using the same engine I can't imagine that CS is pushing the engine harder than HL2. I tried playing it on lower res settings at first because I didn't think I would be able to bump it up all the way, but the lower settings just looked crappier and made the overlays screw up for some reason.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    People always like to banter on and on about frame rates, but is there even any point at going beyond 60fps? Most people can't discern beyond 30fps.



    Remember CRT monitors? Ever try to use one with a cheesy refresh rate of, say, 60 Hz? Much better above 85 Hz, no? Well Hz is screen redraws per second, or "frame rate". Indeed there is a huge difference between 30 fps and 85 fps, and just about anyone with decent eyesight could detect it.



    I would agree that frame rates over 90 or so are just a dick waving contest.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    blue2kdaveblue2kdave Posts: 652member
    I've been playing half life 2 on my iMac, and it plays just as well as on my two year old game pc. It's awesome to switch over, play a game, then come rushing back to comfort of the Mac world. I have never had to use Windows that much, and having the two OSes sitting next to each other does not make for a flattering comparison. Which may be the point.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg

    I would agree that frame rates over 90 or so are just a dick waving contest.



    Jesus fucking christ, that's a great way of putting it.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    mattyjmattyj Posts: 898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    Jesus fucking christ, that's a great way of putting it.



    Not really, if that 90fps was in the midst of the most demanding part of the game then yes, but that's hardly ever the case. A game that's doing 90fps while you're simply walking down a corridor will easily go below 20fps when you get into a gunfight with multiple enemies.
Sign In or Register to comment.