To be fair, it is not even optimized for medium end systems. I think the reason a lot of people don't understand the high system requirements is that every other game they play looks fine. I mean, I can run every other game I play on the highest settings. I had to get a new video card to play Oblivion when it came out, but I could understand why... What I can't understand is why the system that runs Oblivion on maxed out settings can barely run vanguard on its second lowest quality setting.
I was surfing around the Vanguard homepage earlier today and I found something from Mr. Ryan Elam, the Director of Technology for Vanguard. There were a lot of people asking him "Why won't my computer run Vanguard well?" Basically, unless you've dumped an absolutely absurd amount of money into your machine, you're not going to be running this beast on highest settings right now without hiccups, lag, and shitty performance. Why, you may ask? It was designed that way. Sigil wants this game to grow, and they don't want to have to overhaul the engine 2 years down the line to keep up with the industry standard in graphics. The game was designed to run on Highest Settings on a machine that they think will be standard for most computer users a year and a half or so down the line.
To be fair, it is not even optimized for medium end systems. I think the reason a lot of people don't understand the high system requirements is that every other game they play looks fine. I mean, I can run every other game I play on the highest settings. I had to get a new video card to play Oblivion when it came out, but I could understand why... What I can't understand is why the system that runs Oblivion on maxed out settings can barely run vanguard on its second lowest quality setting.
Yes, I agree. Sigil are more than aware of the performance problems and have said several times that this is an on going work. You can check the today (Friday) status post on the vanguard web site for some more confirmation on this.
I was surfing around the Vanguard homepage earlier today and I found something from Mr. Ryan Elam, the Director of Technology for Vanguard. There were a lot of people asking him "Why won't my computer run Vanguard well?" Basically, unless you've dumped an absolutely absurd amount of money into your machine, you're not going to be running this beast on highest settings right now without hiccups, lag, and shitty performance. Why, you may ask? It was designed that way. Sigil wants this game to grow, and they don't want to have to overhaul the engine 2 years down the line to keep up with the industry standard in graphics. The game was designed to run on Highest Settings on a machine that they think will be standard for most computer users a year and a half or so down the line. If you're interested, here's the article.
Elam's remarks sound like BS to try and cover up poor programming and optimization. I'm still looking for the payoff. VANGUARD's art direction on the highest settings is simply not good enough to justify the demands the game puts on current computers. It's the same problem EQ2 had when it first came out - a plastic world filled with plastic people that runs at 5-20 FPS on too many systems.
I was surfing around the Vanguard homepage earlier today and I found something from Mr. Ryan Elam, the Director of Technology for Vanguard. There were a lot of people asking him "Why won't my computer run Vanguard well?" Basically, unless you've dumped an absolutely absurd amount of money into your machine, you're not going to be running this beast on highest settings right now without hiccups, lag, and shitty performance. Why, you may ask? It was designed that way. Sigil wants this game to grow, and they don't want to have to overhaul the engine 2 years down the line to keep up with the industry standard in graphics. The game was designed to run on Highest Settings on a machine that they think will be standard for most computer users a year and a half or so down the line. If you're interested, here's the article.
Elam's remarks sound like BS to try and cover up poor programming and optimization. I'm still looking for the payoff. VANGUARD's art direction on the highest settings is simply not good enough to justify the demands the game puts on current computers. It's the same problem EQ2 had when it first came out - a plastic world filled with plastic people that runs at 5-20 FPS on too many systems.
Quoted for Truth!
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
Having high graphics capabilities, even beyond current hardware is a good idea. I agree that it is necessary to keep the game competitive over the next few years. They should have also made sure that the graphics settings were properly scalable, with the in-game settings, to allow people to play it on current hardware and have it still look and run as good as other games that are out right now. I don't expect it run on my machine at the highest settings, but I would like it to run and look as good as other games I am capable of running.
I did read todays update earlier , and it really got me fired up over the issue. They say that we should all just be able to run out and buy a $150 video card to run the game... Even if that was true it would mean that this game would cost you about 210 bucks just to get running. The problem is that they neglected to mention the required RAM upgrade. Theres another 200 bucks I have to dish out for what really is only a mediocre game at this point.
Having high graphics capabilities, even beyond current hardware is a good idea. I agree that it is necessary to keep the game competitive over the next few years. They should have also made sure that the graphics settings were properly scalable, with the in-game settings, to allow people to play it on current hardware and have it still look and run as good as other games that are out right now. I don't expect it run on my machine at the highest settings, but I would like it to run and look as good as other games I am capable of running. I did read todays update earlier , and it really got me fired up over the issue. They say that we should all just be able to run out and buy a $150 video card to run the game... Even if that was true it would mean that this game would cost you about 210 bucks just to get running. The problem is that they neglected to mention the required RAM upgrade. Theres another 200 bucks I have to dish out for what really is only a mediocre game at this point.
I couldn't agree more with your post.
Here are my credentials:
MCSE, MCP (Win2k Pro), SCJP 1.5, RHCT, CCNA, A+
10 years of Windows C++ development and 3 years of .NET development.
They have made a very serious mistake with this game and a LOT of people agree with us. The performance is pathetic on even GREAT systems. Here's my system:
AMD 64 3500+ oc'd to 3Ghz, 2 GB of DDR400, twin (yes 2) 10k RPM WD Raptor hdd's running RAID 0 (this is where VG is installed).
Twin (yes 2) NVidia 7800 GT OC video cards on PCIx slots running in SLI (SLI makes no difference on VG, btw).
NF4 LanParty Mobo
I spent the first 3 whole days playing with the vgclient.ini trying to get an acceptable and consistent FPS. I ended up getting 35 FPS in the fields and 20 (sometimes MUCH less) in the cities.
AND THIS IS WITH NO DAMN SOUND!
If I turn the sound on I loose 10-15 FPS right off the top.
Here's another kicker: I *bought* an ATI x1950xtx (read: the best card ATI makes) from CompUSA just so I could see if there was a performance gain - NOTHING! (I took back the card btw).
The problem is NOT with the hardware, it is with the software, plain and simple. I feel confident in this diagnosis because this is what I do to make a living - I diagnose problems and I solve them either with code or whatever else is needed.
Windows® 2000, XP 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible computer 100% DirectX compatible keyboard or input device Processor 2.4 GHz Intel processor or 2400+ or higher model AMD processor 512 MB RAM Vertex and Pixel shader 2.0 compatible hardware with 128MB of texture memory 100% DirectX compatible sound card 56K + Internet Connection 16X Speed DVD-ROM 20 Gigabytes Hard Drive Space
Recommended:
Windows® 2000, XP, Vista 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible computer 100% DirectX compatible keyboard or input device Processor 3.0 GHz Intel or 3500+ AMD processor 2 GB RAM Vertex and Pixel shader 2.0 compatible hardware with 256MB of texture memory DirectSound compatible audio hardware Broadband Internet Connection 16X Speed DVD-ROM 20 Gigabytes Hard Drive Space
Now if this doesn't prove that there is a serious problem then all I have to say is... fan boys will stop at nothing to prove common sense and FACT wrong.
Having high graphics capabilities, even beyond current hardware is a good idea. I agree that it is necessary to keep the game competitive over the next few years. They should have also made sure that the graphics settings were properly scalable, with the in-game settings, to allow people to play it on current hardware and have it still look and run as good as other games that are out right now. I don't expect it run on my machine at the highest settings, but I would like it to run and look as good as other games I am capable of running. I did read todays update earlier , and it really got me fired up over the issue. They say that we should all just be able to run out and buy a $150 video card to run the game... Even if that was true it would mean that this game would cost you about 210 bucks just to get running. The problem is that they neglected to mention the required RAM upgrade. Theres another 200 bucks I have to dish out for what really is only a mediocre game at this point.
I don't know where he gets that $150 figure. I have a 7800GT, which costs about $200 right now. I'm sitting in Three Rivers Village, with about ten other players. My graphics are turned all the way down to "Highest Performance," and I'm only getting 17FPS (and that takes a dive if I try to move).
I'm using a buddy key, and I ordered the game while I was still playing in the starting areas (where there aren't many players, and I can run it on "Balanced"). Now that I see what it's really like, I'm cancelling my order. It will be a great game in about a year, once they have the graphics optimized, and the hardware needed to run it moves into the affordable range. Right now, it's only worth playing if you have a brand-new high-end system.
Having high graphics capabilities, even beyond current hardware is a good idea. I agree that it is necessary to keep the game competitive over the next few years. They should have also made sure that the graphics settings were properly scalable, with the in-game settings, to allow people to play it on current hardware and have it still look and run as good as other games that are out right now. I don't expect it run on my machine at the highest settings, but I would like it to run and look as good as other games I am capable of running. I did read todays update earlier , and it really got me fired up over the issue. They say that we should all just be able to run out and buy a $150 video card to run the game... Even if that was true it would mean that this game would cost you about 210 bucks just to get running. The problem is that they neglected to mention the required RAM upgrade. Theres another 200 bucks I have to dish out for what really is only a mediocre game at this point.
I don't know where he gets that $150 figure. I have a 7800GT, which costs about $200 right now. I'm sitting in Three Rivers Village, with about ten other players. My graphics are turned all the way down to "Highest Performance," and I'm only getting 17FPS (and that takes a dive if I try to move).
I'm using a buddy key, and I ordered the game while I was still playing in the starting areas (where there aren't many players, and I can run it on "Balanced"). Now that I see what it's really like, I'm cancelling my order. It will be a great game in about a year, once they have the graphics optimized, and the hardware needed to run it moves into the affordable range. Right now, it's only worth playing if you have a brand-new high-end system.
Read my above post. It proves that their recommended system spec is, if not completely false, at least embellished.
the game is fine. not good, fine buthe performance is honestly very bad.. i run 45 fps with all the tweaks etc out in the open, and the moment i hit a group with 5+ players it is slideshot heaven mind you, i run the game on high performance... while some of you say thats '" all my hardware can take" don forget that: - i run EQ2 on 1600+ high qual in raid - i run WoW any raid/BG without a hickup - i run Daoc 100 vs 100 rvr with not a single FPS drop, mind you,, ALL of the above examples look WAY better then vanguard does at the setting i am running it.
too bad, the game has great potential. but this is nuts.
Don't listen to people saying your rig isn't good enough. During the last Dev chat, they said that they're working on optimizing the game and it should be playable by anyone with a $150 video card in the next six months to a year. If you're not happy with the current performance, take a break and check back in six months or so. It might (hopefully will) be a totally different game performance wise.
the game is fine. not good, fine buthe performance is honestly very bad.. i run 45 fps with all the tweaks etc out in the open, and the moment i hit a group with 5+ players it is slideshot heaven mind you, i run the game on high performance... while some of you say thats '" all my hardware can take" don forget that: - i run EQ2 on 1600+ high qual in raid - i run WoW any raid/BG without a hickup - i run Daoc 100 vs 100 rvr with not a single FPS drop, mind you,, ALL of the above examples look WAY better then vanguard does at the setting i am running it.
too bad, the game has great potential. but this is nuts.
I agree, on all of this..this is the same for me..and I absolutly don't see Vanguard even in the same ballpark as EQ2 for instance(maybe in some areas)
Having high graphics capabilities, even beyond current hardware is a good idea. I agree that it is necessary to keep the game competitive over the next few years.
Well..EQ2 did this when it was new but Vanguard didnt, It's just poor code..
Thanks all for keeping this post civil and a good discussion, learned a lot allready about it.
Yeah it does seem like most of the "low" settings doesnt actually do much, like for instance "quality of bumped surfaces" its either 1% or 0% because 1-100% doesnt do anything to the quality at all.
Many settings are like this, and like someone mentioned before, they probably have to make this game run good on those settings, something i didnt know. I was in the understanding that that was allready taken care of
Personally, I cancelled my subscription to the game tonight. The fact of the matter is that the games are knee-jerk nerfing classes and they are not really listening to their players at all. In addition, the poor performance of the game is really appalling.
I think part of the performance problems are not only due to poor coding but poor polygon usage. You can easily see this poor usage of polygons just moving around in the various zones or looking at the character models. It seems like they have tried to go for ultra high polygon count models on some things and extremely low on other items without trying to find a stable baseline that won't dramatically kill most people's rendering capabilities. They also have some pretty high res textures in there being used on things that don't really need them such as some of the rocks and trees.
I really get a kick out of the VG posts. I wanted to buy this game really bad until I started reading the forum posts. It seems that unless I want to sink another 400$ or so into my computer I should just stick to running "every other game that is out there" instead.
I think I will upgrade next year and save the money for something. thank you all for being so imformative. It does help
Yep, the game was not designed to look good on lower end hardware. I am enjoying playing the game at max settings, but I don't think I would still be playing it on low settings.
good for you, your a minority
Yah, I dont really empathize with you. 3 year old Graphics hardware and you're complaining it doesn't run well? The bad news for you is that you won't be playing much if you don't upgrade. It's not your hardware "sucks", it's just not up to the task of Vanguard. Your comparisons are pretty weak as well
WoW - 2 years old (and made to run on very low end hardware)
EQ2 - 2 Years Old
DAoC - 6 years old
Van - 1 Week old
Can't say it enough, you pay to play on PCs. There is no argument you have that will invalidate that I'm afraid. It's just the way it is whether you like it or not.
Don't listen to people saying your rig isn't good enough. During the last Dev chat, they said that they're working on optimizing the game and it should be playable by anyone with a $150 video card in the next six months to a year. If you're not happy with the current performance, take a break and check back in six months or so. It might (hopefully will) be a totally different game performance wise.
I do hate to point this out, but in another 6 months to a year there will be numerous new MMORPG releases to catch the eye. If Sigil doesn't grab a player base now, they very well may lose them forever.
Don't listen to people saying your rig isn't good enough. During the last Dev chat, they said that they're working on optimizing the game and it should be playable by anyone with a $150 video card in the next six months to a year. If you're not happy with the current performance, take a break and check back in six months or so. It might (hopefully will) be a totally different game performance wise.
I do hate to point this out, but in another 6 months to a year there will be numerous new MMORPG releases to catch the eye. If Sigil doesn't grab a player base now, they very well may lose them forever.
Yes, the so called "2nd coming MMOs". They will no doubt have far more market appeal because they are almost all franchise based and carebear oriented. I think what people need to start understanding here is that Vanguard was never intended for that audience and never will be. There are plenty of people playing Vanguard and it will do well in it's niche market of 250,000 subs. Thats what they were aiming for and Im sure thats what they'll get, give or take a few.
To many of you think that this game is in a race with WoW for MMO supremacy. WoW is popular because it is accessible and easy. Vanguard isn't and it is turning a lot of the E-peen crowd off because they cant race through it and brag to everyone that they are the best on the server (personally, I dont want them around). It turns off some casual gamers because it requires too much of a time investment. It's going to do fine within the parameters that Sigil set forth for it.
3 year old Graphics hardware and you're complaining it doesn't run well?
WoW - 2 years old (and made to run on very low end hardware)
EQ2 - 2 Years Old
DAoC - 6 years old
Van - 1 Week old
It's 1 week old, so what ? it doesn't justify an unoptimized game and/or bad coding.
So you are saying that all games released in 2007 should be unplayable with a 3 year old gfx card? if Vanguards code was batter non of this would be a big problem.
Yep, the game was not designed to look good on lower end hardware. I am enjoying playing the game at max settings, but I don't think I would still be playing it on low settings.
good for you, your a minority
Yah, I dont really empathize with you. 3 year old Graphics hardware and you're complaining it doesn't run well? The bad news for you is that you won't be playing much if you don't upgrade. It's not your hardware "sucks", it's just not up to the task of Vanguard. Your comparisons are pretty weak as well
WoW - 2 years old (and made to run on very low end hardware)
EQ2 - 2 Years Old
DAoC - 6 years old
Van - 1 Week old
Can't say it enough, you pay to play on PCs. There is no argument you have that will invalidate that I'm afraid. It's just the way it is whether you like it or not.
but for s strange reason they all look better and play better mr fanboi :P
Don't listen to people saying your rig isn't good enough. During the last Dev chat, they said that they're working on optimizing the game and it should be playable by anyone with a $150 video card in the next six months to a year. If you're not happy with the current performance, take a break and check back in six months or so. It might (hopefully will) be a totally different game performance wise.
I do hate to point this out, but in another 6 months to a year there will be numerous new MMORPG releases to catch the eye. If Sigil doesn't grab a player base now, they very well may lose them forever.
Yes, the so called "2nd coming MMOs". They will no doubt have far more market appeal because they are almost all franchise based and carebear oriented. I think what people need to start understanding here is that Vanguard was never intended for that audience and never will be. There are plenty of people playing Vanguard and it will do well in it's niche market of 250,000 subs. Thats what they were aiming for and Im sure thats what they'll get, give or take a few.
To many of you think that this game is in a race with WoW for MMO supremacy. WoW is popular because it is accessible and easy. Vanguard isn't and it is turning a lot of the E-peen crowd off because they cant race through it and brag to everyone that they are the best on the server (personally, I dont want them around). It turns off some casual gamers because it requires too much of a time investment. It's going to do fine within the parameters that Sigil set forth for it.
Isn't Sigil working for money ?..do you really think Vanguard was made for some odd hardcore group of players that used to play EQ ? So if Sigil finds out that they could easily get a few extra 100k subs they wont alter the game to get these people ? Do you really think that ?
Yep, the game was not designed to look good on lower end hardware. I am enjoying playing the game at max settings, but I don't think I would still be playing it on low settings.
good for you, your a minority
Yah, I dont really empathize with you. 3 year old Graphics hardware and you're complaining it doesn't run well? The bad news for you is that you won't be playing much if you don't upgrade. It's not your hardware "sucks", it's just not up to the task of Vanguard. Your comparisons are pretty weak as well
WoW - 2 years old (and made to run on very low end hardware)
EQ2 - 2 Years Old
DAoC - 6 years old
Van - 1 Week old
Can't say it enough, you pay to play on PCs. There is no argument you have that will invalidate that I'm afraid. It's just the way it is whether you like it or not.
but for s strange reason they all look better and play better mr fanboi :P
No, not a fanboy, just aware that PCs aren't consoles and you can whine and complain all you like but PC gaming requires a hardware change every year or so to stay current, if you won't/can't you will have to suffer the lower end of the performance settings. Vanguard looks stunning on my rig; easily better than every game you mentioned with the exception of Oblivion, but then again, Oblivion is a single player game, not an MMO.
Keep on calling me fanboy and Ill keep on enjoying Vanguard in all its glory!
Don't listen to people saying your rig isn't good enough. During the last Dev chat, they said that they're working on optimizing the game and it should be playable by anyone with a $150 video card in the next six months to a year. If you're not happy with the current performance, take a break and check back in six months or so. It might (hopefully will) be a totally different game performance wise.
I do hate to point this out, but in another 6 months to a year there will be numerous new MMORPG releases to catch the eye. If Sigil doesn't grab a player base now, they very well may lose them forever.
Yes, the so called "2nd coming MMOs". They will no doubt have far more market appeal because they are almost all franchise based and carebear oriented. I think what people need to start understanding here is that Vanguard was never intended for that audience and never will be. There are plenty of people playing Vanguard and it will do well in it's niche market of 250,000 subs. Thats what they were aiming for and Im sure thats what they'll get, give or take a few.
To many of you think that this game is in a race with WoW for MMO supremacy. WoW is popular because it is accessible and easy. Vanguard isn't and it is turning a lot of the E-peen crowd off because they cant race through it and brag to everyone that they are the best on the server (personally, I dont want them around). It turns off some casual gamers because it requires too much of a time investment. It's going to do fine within the parameters that Sigil set forth for it.
Isn't Sigil working for money ?..do you really think Vanguard was made for some odd hardcore group of players that used to play EQ ? So if Sigil finds out that they could easily get a few extra 100k subs they wont alter the game to get these people ? Do you really think that ?
Or did you mean something else ?
/thark
You see, what you fail to realise is that there is a moderately sized group of people who DONT like the current crop of carebear MMOs that permeate the market presently. Vanguard WAS aimed at that group. Why does every game have to be a carbon copy of the last one? Why does every game have to cater to a crowd of people who want to show off and blast through the content in 10 minutes. There are plenty of games for you people, go and play one of them!
Comments
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
I was surfing around the Vanguard homepage earlier today and I found something from Mr. Ryan Elam, the Director of Technology for Vanguard. There were a lot of people asking him "Why won't my computer run Vanguard well?" Basically, unless you've dumped an absolutely absurd amount of money into your machine, you're not going to be running this beast on highest settings right now without hiccups, lag, and shitty performance. Why, you may ask? It was designed that way. Sigil wants this game to grow, and they don't want to have to overhaul the engine 2 years down the line to keep up with the industry standard in graphics. The game was designed to run on Highest Settings on a machine that they think will be standard for most computer users a year and a half or so down the line.
If you're interested, here's the article.
_________________
The above post is purely my opinion. If you disagree, that's your right. However, don't be an ass about it.
Edit: Razorteets beat me to it
Quoted for Truth!
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
Having high graphics capabilities, even beyond current hardware is a good idea. I agree that it is necessary to keep the game competitive over the next few years. They should have also made sure that the graphics settings were properly scalable, with the in-game settings, to allow people to play it on current hardware and have it still look and run as good as other games that are out right now. I don't expect it run on my machine at the highest settings, but I would like it to run and look as good as other games I am capable of running.
I did read todays update earlier , and it really got me fired up over the issue. They say that we should all just be able to run out and buy a $150 video card to run the game... Even if that was true it would mean that this game would cost you about 210 bucks just to get running. The problem is that they neglected to mention the required RAM upgrade. Theres another 200 bucks I have to dish out for what really is only a mediocre game at this point.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
I couldn't agree more with your post.
Here are my credentials:
MCSE, MCP (Win2k Pro), SCJP 1.5, RHCT, CCNA, A+
10 years of Windows C++ development and 3 years of .NET development.
They have made a very serious mistake with this game and a LOT of people agree with us. The performance is pathetic on even GREAT systems. Here's my system:
AMD 64 3500+ oc'd to 3Ghz, 2 GB of DDR400, twin (yes 2) 10k RPM WD Raptor hdd's running RAID 0 (this is where VG is installed).
Twin (yes 2) NVidia 7800 GT OC video cards on PCIx slots running in SLI (SLI makes no difference on VG, btw).
NF4 LanParty Mobo
I spent the first 3 whole days playing with the vgclient.ini trying to get an acceptable and consistent FPS. I ended up getting 35 FPS in the fields and 20 (sometimes MUCH less) in the cities.
AND THIS IS WITH NO DAMN SOUND!
If I turn the sound on I loose 10-15 FPS right off the top.
Here's another kicker: I *bought* an ATI x1950xtx (read: the best card ATI makes) from CompUSA just so I could see if there was a performance gain - NOTHING! (I took back the card btw).
The problem is NOT with the hardware, it is with the software, plain and simple. I feel confident in this diagnosis because this is what I do to make a living - I diagnose problems and I solve them either with code or whatever else is needed.
(snipped from CompUSA's site RE: Vanguard)
System Requirements:
Minimum:
Windows® 2000, XP
100% DirectX 9.0c compatible computer
100% DirectX compatible keyboard or input device
Processor 2.4 GHz Intel processor or 2400+ or higher model AMD processor
512 MB RAM
Vertex and Pixel shader 2.0 compatible hardware with 128MB of texture memory
100% DirectX compatible sound card
56K + Internet Connection
16X Speed DVD-ROM
20 Gigabytes Hard Drive Space
Recommended:
Windows® 2000, XP, Vista
100% DirectX 9.0c compatible computer
100% DirectX compatible keyboard or input device
Processor 3.0 GHz Intel or 3500+ AMD processor
2 GB RAM
Vertex and Pixel shader 2.0 compatible hardware with 256MB of texture memory
DirectSound compatible audio hardware
Broadband Internet Connection
16X Speed DVD-ROM
20 Gigabytes Hard Drive Space
Now if this doesn't prove that there is a serious problem then all I have to say is... fan boys will stop at nothing to prove common sense and FACT wrong.
Kedoremos
Life of an MMORPG "addict"
For 7 years, proving that if you quote "fuck" you won't get banned.
I'm using a buddy key, and I ordered the game while I was still playing in the starting areas (where there aren't many players, and I can run it on "Balanced"). Now that I see what it's really like, I'm cancelling my order. It will be a great game in about a year, once they have the graphics optimized, and the hardware needed to run it moves into the affordable range. Right now, it's only worth playing if you have a brand-new high-end system.
I'm using a buddy key, and I ordered the game while I was still playing in the starting areas (where there aren't many players, and I can run it on "Balanced"). Now that I see what it's really like, I'm cancelling my order. It will be a great game in about a year, once they have the graphics optimized, and the hardware needed to run it moves into the affordable range. Right now, it's only worth playing if you have a brand-new high-end system.
Read my above post. It proves that their recommended system spec is, if not completely false, at least embellished.
Kedoremos
Life of an MMORPG "addict"
For 7 years, proving that if you quote "fuck" you won't get banned.
Thanks all for keeping this post civil and a good discussion, learned a lot allready about it.
Yeah it does seem like most of the "low" settings doesnt actually do much, like for instance "quality of bumped surfaces" its either 1% or 0% because 1-100% doesnt do anything to the quality at all.
Many settings are like this, and like someone mentioned before, they probably have to make this game run good on those settings, something i didnt know. I was in the understanding that that was allready taken care of
I think part of the performance problems are not only due to poor coding but poor polygon usage. You can easily see this poor usage of polygons just moving around in the various zones or looking at the character models. It seems like they have tried to go for ultra high polygon count models on some things and extremely low on other items without trying to find a stable baseline that won't dramatically kill most people's rendering capabilities. They also have some pretty high res textures in there being used on things that don't really need them such as some of the rocks and trees.
I think I will upgrade next year and save the money for something. thank you all for being so imformative. It does help
Yah, I dont really empathize with you. 3 year old Graphics hardware and you're complaining it doesn't run well? The bad news for you is that you won't be playing much if you don't upgrade. It's not your hardware "sucks", it's just not up to the task of Vanguard. Your comparisons are pretty weak as well
WoW - 2 years old (and made to run on very low end hardware)
EQ2 - 2 Years Old
DAoC - 6 years old
Van - 1 Week old
Can't say it enough, you pay to play on PCs. There is no argument you have that will invalidate that I'm afraid. It's just the way it is whether you like it or not.
Yes, the so called "2nd coming MMOs". They will no doubt have far more market appeal because they are almost all franchise based and carebear oriented. I think what people need to start understanding here is that Vanguard was never intended for that audience and never will be. There are plenty of people playing Vanguard and it will do well in it's niche market of 250,000 subs. Thats what they were aiming for and Im sure thats what they'll get, give or take a few.
To many of you think that this game is in a race with WoW for MMO supremacy. WoW is popular because it is accessible and easy. Vanguard isn't and it is turning a lot of the E-peen crowd off because they cant race through it and brag to everyone that they are the best on the server (personally, I dont want them around). It turns off some casual gamers because it requires too much of a time investment. It's going to do fine within the parameters that Sigil set forth for it.
It's 1 week old, so what ? it doesn't justify an unoptimized game and/or bad coding.
So you are saying that all games released in 2007 should be unplayable with a 3 year old gfx card? if Vanguards code was batter non of this would be a big problem.
Yah, I dont really empathize with you. 3 year old Graphics hardware and you're complaining it doesn't run well? The bad news for you is that you won't be playing much if you don't upgrade. It's not your hardware "sucks", it's just not up to the task of Vanguard. Your comparisons are pretty weak as well
WoW - 2 years old (and made to run on very low end hardware)
EQ2 - 2 Years Old
DAoC - 6 years old
Van - 1 Week old
Can't say it enough, you pay to play on PCs. There is no argument you have that will invalidate that I'm afraid. It's just the way it is whether you like it or not.
but for s strange reason they all look better and play better mr fanboi :P
Yes, the so called "2nd coming MMOs". They will no doubt have far more market appeal because they are almost all franchise based and carebear oriented. I think what people need to start understanding here is that Vanguard was never intended for that audience and never will be. There are plenty of people playing Vanguard and it will do well in it's niche market of 250,000 subs. Thats what they were aiming for and Im sure thats what they'll get, give or take a few.
To many of you think that this game is in a race with WoW for MMO supremacy. WoW is popular because it is accessible and easy. Vanguard isn't and it is turning a lot of the E-peen crowd off because they cant race through it and brag to everyone that they are the best on the server (personally, I dont want them around). It turns off some casual gamers because it requires too much of a time investment. It's going to do fine within the parameters that Sigil set forth for it.
Isn't Sigil working for money ?..do you really think Vanguard was made for some odd hardcore group of players that used to play EQ ? So if Sigil finds out that they could easily get a few extra 100k subs they wont alter the game to get these people ? Do you really think that ?
Or did you mean something else ?
/thark
Yah, I dont really empathize with you. 3 year old Graphics hardware and you're complaining it doesn't run well? The bad news for you is that you won't be playing much if you don't upgrade. It's not your hardware "sucks", it's just not up to the task of Vanguard. Your comparisons are pretty weak as well
WoW - 2 years old (and made to run on very low end hardware)
EQ2 - 2 Years Old
DAoC - 6 years old
Van - 1 Week old
Can't say it enough, you pay to play on PCs. There is no argument you have that will invalidate that I'm afraid. It's just the way it is whether you like it or not.
but for s strange reason they all look better and play better mr fanboi :P
No, not a fanboy, just aware that PCs aren't consoles and you can whine and complain all you like but PC gaming requires a hardware change every year or so to stay current, if you won't/can't you will have to suffer the lower end of the performance settings. Vanguard looks stunning on my rig; easily better than every game you mentioned with the exception of Oblivion, but then again, Oblivion is a single player game, not an MMO.
Keep on calling me fanboy and Ill keep on enjoying Vanguard in all its glory!
Yes, the so called "2nd coming MMOs". They will no doubt have far more market appeal because they are almost all franchise based and carebear oriented. I think what people need to start understanding here is that Vanguard was never intended for that audience and never will be. There are plenty of people playing Vanguard and it will do well in it's niche market of 250,000 subs. Thats what they were aiming for and Im sure thats what they'll get, give or take a few.
To many of you think that this game is in a race with WoW for MMO supremacy. WoW is popular because it is accessible and easy. Vanguard isn't and it is turning a lot of the E-peen crowd off because they cant race through it and brag to everyone that they are the best on the server (personally, I dont want them around). It turns off some casual gamers because it requires too much of a time investment. It's going to do fine within the parameters that Sigil set forth for it.
Isn't Sigil working for money ?..do you really think Vanguard was made for some odd hardcore group of players that used to play EQ ? So if Sigil finds out that they could easily get a few extra 100k subs they wont alter the game to get these people ? Do you really think that ?
Or did you mean something else ?
/thark
You see, what you fail to realise is that there is a moderately sized group of people who DONT like the current crop of carebear MMOs that permeate the market presently. Vanguard WAS aimed at that group. Why does every game have to be a carbon copy of the last one? Why does every game have to cater to a crowd of people who want to show off and blast through the content in 10 minutes. There are plenty of games for you people, go and play one of them!