it proberbly is nt the best indicator of what the average pc . my pcs about a year and a half old and i ve updgraded a few things in it over that time ( video card and ram ) it runs lord of the rings on its ultra high settings and most recent release games as well . it only seams to struggle with the age of conan beta . i think if the game is really exceptional it have a limited success but it will have to be something really speacial to keep all those with a high spec pc playing it . nice graphics arnt everything in an mmo there has to be decent gameplay and a vibrant community .
dunno where wicans statement on americas poor enters into a gameing debate . perhaps she or he would see things a bit differently and more accuratly if she or he were one of them.
Originally posted by sandgrown None of this bodes well for notorious system hog Age of Conan, which launches this month."
Yes and No.
Yes, Conan is way above the ability of the average range PC today. Most computers that people have been gaming on will simply not handle AoC at all. The average computer is over 3-years old and Conan will tax anything but a high end computer from over a year ago and will be unplayable to any real extent on any system greater than three years old.
That being said... So? I don't think that is a bad thing.
World of Worthless came out, as they say, at the right place at the right time. Computing power, graphics, bandwidth and the internet were coming together in the early 2000's. In the 1990's UO, EQ and Asheron's Call were all dealing with computers that had less power than a modern day cell phone.
WoW was there at the right time. It is a game that can be played on a toaster oven and by 2004 enough people now had internet access and a computer that could handle something the scale of WoW. People forget that a half a decade passed between EverQuest / Asheron's Call and the launch of Warcraft. During that time computers evolved and created a market that simply had never existed before.
Add to that the fact that there was a flood of Nintendo-style gamers suddenly arriving on the web and demanding a nintedno style MMO - Voila! Presto! you have WoW. There is a LAw of the MMO Gaming world that says, "You will never find a game that is as good as your first MMORPG." These nintendo kids all stumbled into the world of gaming at the time and place that WoW was born. They are hooked on a basic, nintendo-style lack of detail, shallow, and flavorless game... why? Because it was there and they were hungry.
AoC is now shinning a light in to the future of gaming. Will all the Wow-children come running? No. Will some, yes. Will some come running and find that their toaster oven can't play AoC? Yep... look around these fora, they are already here.
I would have to disagree on WoW graphics being shallow and flavorless. WoW has one of the best graphic artistic styles in the mmo market. They add a great flavor and special style to the game, and although WoW does not have graphics that a high-end computer requires ,it still has incredible detail in Azeroth (WoWs world). Games that have graphics I can't stand are EQ2 and Vanguard. Those type of games world feel lifeless and the character models look like plastic barbie dolls. Everybody here on mmorpg.com usually hate WoW because its #1 mmorpg and usually people on forums have the tendency to hate mainstream things for some reason.
Lol considering I was running on a 2 year old laptop(Not even a gaming laptop, getting 20-35 FPS) I would say it would run fine on new mid range systems as long as they have a video card. SPECS: 1.8ghz C2D 5400rpm 70gig HD 2gig ram 7600go GPU Vista 32bit Incase anyones wondering.
interesting...you did? i was thinking to wait until i get a new desktop pc this summer, but when one can actually play on your laptop... i might give it a shot already at release.
I have almost the same specs:
2.0 ghz C2D
2gig ram
7700 go gpu
xp
I think you could run it better then me but still probably youd be stuck on low like i was(Which still looks great in my opinion) that was at 1280x800 on a 15.4" so it looked great. I also ran it on a system with a 6800gs 2gigs ram 3ghz amd cpu, and xp. It ran a bit better on this system, and that was at a 1280x1024 resolution. Still I saw this on my friends beast of a pc and it was just incredible(better then Console games out now!) so I am seriously thinking of upgrading to a much better desktop for this title. No matter what people say Graphics DO improve a game...
Originally posted by sandgrown None of this bodes well for notorious system hog Age of Conan, which launches this month."
Yes and No.
Yes, Conan is way above the ability of the average range PC today. Most computers that people have been gaming on will simply not handle AoC at all. The average computer is over 3-years old and Conan will tax anything but a high end computer from over a year ago and will be unplayable to any real extent on any system greater than three years old.
That being said... So? I don't think that is a bad thing.
World of Worthless came out, as they say, at the right place at the right time. Computing power, graphics, bandwidth and the internet were coming together in the early 2000's. In the 1990's UO, EQ and Asheron's Call were all dealing with computers that had less power than a modern day cell phone.
WoW was there at the right time. It is a game that can be played on a toaster oven and by 2004 enough people now had internet access and a computer that could handle something the scale of WoW. People forget that a half a decade passed between EverQuest / Asheron's Call and the launch of Warcraft. During that time computers evolved and created a market that simply had never existed before.
Add to that the fact that there was a flood of Nintendo-style gamers suddenly arriving on the web and demanding a nintedno style MMO - Voila! Presto! you have WoW. There is a LAw of the MMO Gaming world that says, "You will never find a game that is as good as your first MMORPG." These nintendo kids all stumbled into the world of gaming at the time and place that WoW was born. They are hooked on a basic, nintendo-style lack of detail, shallow, and flavorless game... why? Because it was there and they were hungry.
AoC is now shinning a light in to the future of gaming. Will all the Wow-children come running? No. Will some, yes. Will some come running and find that their toaster oven can't play AoC? Yep... look around these fora, they are already here.
I would have to disagree on WoW graphics being shallow and flavorless. WoW has one of the best graphic artistic styles in the mmo market. They add a great flavor and special style to the game, and although WoW does not have graphics that a high-end computer requires ,it still has incredible detail in Azeroth (WoWs world). Games that have graphics I can't stand are EQ2 and Vanguard. Those type of games world feel lifeless and the character models look like plastic barbie dolls. Everybody here on mmorpg.com usually hate WoW because its #1 mmorpg and usually people on forums have the tendency to hate mainstream things for some reason.
I completely agree with you about VG and EQ2's graphics however AOC graphics are completely the opposite, they went the realistic route and they so, Esucceeded very muchverything in Hyboria just looks stunning, and the art direction is better then any Ive seen in my opinion, and that includes WOW. With all the settings maxed on a high resolution this game looks better then anything out there on consoles in my opinion. Only game I can think of that looks better off the top of my head is Crysis To be honest.
Originally posted by sandgrown None of this bodes well for notorious system hog Age of Conan, which launches this month."
Yes and No.
Yes, Conan is way above the ability of the average range PC today. Most computers that people have been gaming on will simply not handle AoC at all. The average computer is over 3-years old and Conan will tax anything but a high end computer from over a year ago and will be unplayable to any real extent on any system greater than three years old.
That being said... So? I don't think that is a bad thing.
World of Worthless came out, as they say, at the right place at the right time. Computing power, graphics, bandwidth and the internet were coming together in the early 2000's. In the 1990's UO, EQ and Asheron's Call were all dealing with computers that had less power than a modern day cell phone.
WoW was there at the right time. It is a game that can be played on a toaster oven and by 2004 enough people now had internet access and a computer that could handle something the scale of WoW. People forget that a half a decade passed between EverQuest / Asheron's Call and the launch of Warcraft. During that time computers evolved and created a market that simply had never existed before.
Add to that the fact that there was a flood of Nintendo-style gamers suddenly arriving on the web and demanding a nintedno style MMO - Voila! Presto! you have WoW. There is a LAw of the MMO Gaming world that says, "You will never find a game that is as good as your first MMORPG." These nintendo kids all stumbled into the world of gaming at the time and place that WoW was born. They are hooked on a basic, nintendo-style lack of detail, shallow, and flavorless game... why? Because it was there and they were hungry.
AoC is now shinning a light in to the future of gaming. Will all the Wow-children come running? No. Will some, yes. Will some come running and find that their toaster oven can't play AoC? Yep... look around these fora, they are already here.
I would have to disagree on WoW graphics being shallow and flavorless. WoW has one of the best graphic artistic styles in the mmo market. They add a great flavor and special style to the game, and although WoW does not have graphics that a high-end computer requires ,it still has incredible detail in Azeroth (WoWs world). Games that have graphics I can't stand are EQ2 and Vanguard. Those type of games world feel lifeless and the character models look like plastic barbie dolls. Everybody here on mmorpg.com usually hate WoW because its #1 mmorpg and usually people on forums have the tendency to hate mainstream things for some reason.
I completely agree with you about VG and EQ2's graphics however AOC graphics are completely the opposite, they went the realistic route and they so, Esucceeded very muchverything in Hyboria just looks stunning, and the art direction is better then any Ive seen in my opinion, and that includes WOW. With all the settings maxed on a high resolution this game looks better then anything out there on consoles in my opinion. Only game I can think of that looks better off the top of my head is Crysis To be honest.
Smedley is just taking shots cause he knows AoC at this point is extremely popular around the net. So he wants to try and get people thinking they cant play it without a duel core system. That way those few EQ2 and SWG players won't jump ship to AoC in a week. As to what kind of system do you need to play it on. Mine is most certainly 'mid range' and after the friday patch in OB it ran very well. I had as many as 60 odd people around me on Low settings (still looked great,) and has very little lag and about 20fps! During heavy activity with dozens of folks around me, I would at times dip down low for a second, but generally it hovered around 20fps. In areas with few other players, I was often getting 30+. Heres my system specs; AMD 3500+ (single core) XFX 7900GS 256 ASUS 939 board 1.5g DDR333 80g Western Digital IDE
Clearly not high end by any stretch of the imagination. Yet on low settings I ran the game very well, and it still looked amazing. Note though that I'm building a monster system, just waiting on the processor to arrive tomorrow, the rest of the system is all built. I want to play the game in all it's glory. But simply with the fact that I can play the game with 20+ average FPS on my current system attests to that.
Also wanted to add that when EQ2 came out I had a mid-range system as well. I think it was a 1800+, 1g ram, a 30g IDE hd, an asus socket A board. Unlike AoC, EQ2 was high end at the time and on my system it ran horribly in the town. In any area of the game with more then 10 people in view, I stuttered horribly. EQ2 just wasn't very well optimized for anything but high end hardware So AoC is high end, but it is also remarkably well optimized, and I feel that as long as you have a reasonably good gaming PC, you'll do well. Just don't try and run the game on top settings if you have a system like mine lol. Thats unreasonable and I bet the source of many 'this game runs like crap' posts lol. And Taela, I don't think they'd put a big patch that fixes most the technical issues and dramatically increases FPS into the betas for nothing I'm sure that on release we'll be getting a similar patch (if it isn't already on the DvD copies,) come live.
my second system is very similar to yours
i have 2 gigs ram on it with a 100gig HD so not much difference.
my second system along with my main both ran the game very well. The one mentioned above ran it on low (which still looked amazing btw) with 30fps pretty solid.
my second system is quite improved but this shows what a pretty outdated system can do in AoC. it looked really good and ran surprisingly well
What I find odd more than anything else is when people try to argue over system specs... guys, if you own an 8600, I wouldn't consider that an average computer. Most run on things like an FX5200 (including my own, at least my old one) and have single core processors.
To the OP, I think it's pretty obvious what the answer is... yes, the specs for AoC will be too high for the average player. AoC isn't aiming towards the average player, at least not yet. They made this decision a while ago... they could go the easy route, like what WAR is doing, to guarantee the most subscribers. Or, they could offer the best quality at the cost of having the most successful game out there.
Tbh I love that AoC is doing this. I myself could care less how many subscribers there are as long as there is enough to play and feel immersed. I want quality... and after seeing every single beta video out at the moment of WAR... it looks almost exactly the same as WoW, which is just honest judgement. I'm not bashing WAR, trust me I'm expecting that game as much as AoC, but it's really taking the safe money route to gain the most subscribers... if my computer can handle either of the two, I'm choosing the one that is, generally, better. But people are going to go to WAR because it is the best their computers can handle, not necessarily because it is the best of the two, although many can argue. Which is fine, and I can't give full judgement of the game yet anyhow... it's got a couple months yet until release to add the "flesh" to the game, which alot of people are saying to defend it.
Then again, AoC may be onto something here. If they do keep themselves in the limelight long enough, when system specs are at a point where mid-range computers would be considered playable for this game, they could make this game into something big. But it will take time.
Neat survey.... but just off the top of my head I would also suggest that this survey is weighted to the high end of the computers too. People that just 'use' a computer don't do things like these surveys. People that are interesting in computer performance do. And that likely skews the results higher than actual population would suggest.
Would that argument not also sway to the fact that people who are interested in MMORPG's would most likely have a decent mid range computer and the more casual types would have say the lower end....
Hmm, good point Oriphus. I hadn't thought of that component to the equation. But I bet you are right.
I think FunCom is doing a neat thing. They are shooting for a different market than thepopulation in the "WoW to War" exodus that I expect later this fall. People are looking for something new. (And I don't agree with some of the people that the two dimentional fingerpainting graphics of WoW are the most artistic expression of the human spirit since since Van Gogh. Actually WoW looks a little Van Gogh-ish to me)
I believe AoC has brought us to a fork in the road. Some will continue down the WoW road toward War, others will take the more scenic route, the road less traveled perhaps, but it is taking us to where we as gamers have never gone before... (Why do I hear Star Trek music?)
"The reality of the poor in America isn't the difference between The Haves and The Have Nots, it is the difference between The Haves and The Have Lots."
Neat survey.... but just off the top of my head I would also suggest that this survey is weighted to the high end of the computers too. People that just 'use' a computer don't do things like these surveys. People that are interesting in computer performance do. And that likely skews the results higher than actual population would suggest.
Would that argument not also sway to the fact that people who are interested in MMORPG's would most likely have a decent mid range computer and the more casual types would have say the lower end....
Hmm, good point Oriphus. I hadn't thought of that component to the equation. But I bet you are right.
I think FunCom is doing a neat thing. They are shooting for a different market than thepopulation in the "WoW to War" exodus that I expect later this fall. People are looking for something new. (And I don't agree with some of the people that the two dimentional fingerpainting graphics of WoW are the most artistic expression of the human spirit since since Van Gogh. Actually WoW looks a little Van Gogh-ish to me)
I believe AoC has brought us to a fork in the road. Some will continue down the WoW road toward War, others will take the more scenic route, the road less traveled perhaps, but it is taking us to where we as gamers have never gone before... (Why do I hear Star Trek music?)
For the WoW looking to Van Gogh thing if it is being refering to my previous post, I did not mean that WoWs graphics are a work of art or anything but they arent horrible like you portray them to be and are actually have a better style then most mmorpgs out there. I'll post a comparison below between EQ2 and WoW as an example. So far I think AoC has the best art direction but before AoC no other mmorpg has been able to achieve the realistic look sucessfully.
i think this game perfects the realism vs artistic art, as well as having a kick ass game engine, i can play this on ultra high max settings, minus dx10 (since i have xp)
i think this game perfects the realism vs artistic art, as well as having a kick ass game engine, i can play this on ultra high max settings, minus dx10 (since i have xp) LOTRO
Forgot about Lotro, it has amazing graphics and art style but I was comparing WoW to a game released around its same launch frame.
JLFL, oh I know, I saw some things in WoW that were better than some of the old MMOs. It is a different stylish environment and it was a huge leap forward from my Asheron's Call days... but I always felt like Papa Surf was going to be my next mission contact.
"The reality of the poor in America isn't the difference between The Haves and The Have Nots, it is the difference between The Haves and The Have Lots."
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Grimm666
Steam does a hardware and system survey of computers using their program. It's probably the most accurate data we have as to what the average gaming rig looks like. http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html I'm not sure how to interpret the results, but I guess someone else can use it to figure out if AOC is too cutting edge for the current market.
million or so people have the hardware capable of running the game from the survey, 3/4 of that million could run it very well.
Not including i-net connection though which is just as important.
Lol considering I was running on a 2 year old laptop(Not even a gaming laptop, getting 20-35 FPS) I would say it would run fine on new mid range systems as long as they have a video card. SPECS: 1.8ghz C2D 5400rpm 70gig HD 2gig ram 7600go GPU Vista 32bit Incase anyones wondering.
interesting...you did? i was thinking to wait until i get a new desktop pc this summer, but when one can actually play on your laptop... i might give it a shot already at release.
I have almost the same specs:
2.0 ghz C2D
2gig ram
7700 go gpu
xp
I think you could run it better then me but still probably youd be stuck on low like i was(Which still looks great in my opinion) that was at 1280x800 on a 15.4" so it looked great. I also ran it on a system with a 6800gs 2gigs ram 3ghz amd cpu, and xp. It ran a bit better on this system, and that was at a 1280x1024 resolution. Still I saw this on my friends beast of a pc and it was just incredible(better then Console games out now!) so I am seriously thinking of upgrading to a much better desktop for this title. No matter what people say Graphics DO improve a game...
Thanks for your feedback. MMh...now i have a hard decision to make...if i should wait until my new desktop arrives or already start with my small lil` laptop. let's see.
from what i read from different people graphic card matters a lot. everyone having a 8800 is reporting it runs good, those with nvidia 8600s are mostly unhappy. from what i read even the older gen top of the line cards semem to run it better tahn 8600s.
About same is true for ATI cards, so if you have one of teh top cards you should be ok, but if you got one of the value cards you will be stuck with about 10-30 fps depending on how much is happening. This makes me curious about mobile gamers, 8600M has even less power than normal 8600 and nearly no laptops have 8800Ms built in.
So i really guess the performance of teh life version on mid range systems will be critical for the success of the game. If funcom can get the game to run steady 25-30fps on low settings on these systems then they have a chance at keeping these big group of gamers too. if pvp in busy areas and raiding gets a slideshow for these then i fear that the game won't get too many subscribers in first year.
Steam does a hardware and system survey of computers using their program. It's probably the most accurate data we have as to what the average gaming rig looks like. http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html I'm not sure how to interpret the results, but I guess someone else can use it to figure out if AOC is too cutting edge for the current market.
million or so people have the hardware capable of running the game from the survey, 3/4 of that million could run it very well.
Not including i-net connection though which is just as important.
I wonder how many of those would be interested in playing an MMO? And how many of those will be interested in playing AoC specifically? The potential customer base is kind of low, if you ask me.
------------------------------------------------
Playing: Final Fantasy Online: ARR, Destiny Most memorable games for me: UO, GW1, LoTRO
Comments
it proberbly is nt the best indicator of what the average pc . my pcs about a year and a half old and i ve updgraded a few things in it over that time ( video card and ram ) it runs lord of the rings on its ultra high settings and most recent release games as well . it only seams to struggle with the age of conan beta . i think if the game is really exceptional it have a limited success but it will have to be something really speacial to keep all those with a high spec pc playing it . nice graphics arnt everything in an mmo there has to be decent gameplay and a vibrant community .
dunno where wicans statement on americas poor enters into a gameing debate . perhaps she or he would see things a bit differently and more accuratly if she or he were one of them.
Yes, Conan is way above the ability of the average range PC today. Most computers that people have been gaming on will simply not handle AoC at all. The average computer is over 3-years old and Conan will tax anything but a high end computer from over a year ago and will be unplayable to any real extent on any system greater than three years old.
That being said... So? I don't think that is a bad thing.
World of Worthless came out, as they say, at the right place at the right time. Computing power, graphics, bandwidth and the internet were coming together in the early 2000's. In the 1990's UO, EQ and Asheron's Call were all dealing with computers that had less power than a modern day cell phone.
WoW was there at the right time. It is a game that can be played on a toaster oven and by 2004 enough people now had internet access and a computer that could handle something the scale of WoW. People forget that a half a decade passed between EverQuest / Asheron's Call and the launch of Warcraft. During that time computers evolved and created a market that simply had never existed before.
Add to that the fact that there was a flood of Nintendo-style gamers suddenly arriving on the web and demanding a nintedno style MMO - Voila! Presto! you have WoW. There is a LAw of the MMO Gaming world that says, "You will never find a game that is as good as your first MMORPG." These nintendo kids all stumbled into the world of gaming at the time and place that WoW was born. They are hooked on a basic, nintendo-style lack of detail, shallow, and flavorless game... why? Because it was there and they were hungry.
AoC is now shinning a light in to the future of gaming. Will all the Wow-children come running? No. Will some, yes. Will some come running and find that their toaster oven can't play AoC? Yep... look around these fora, they are already here.
I would have to disagree on WoW graphics being shallow and flavorless. WoW has one of the best graphic artistic styles in the mmo market. They add a great flavor and special style to the game, and although WoW does not have graphics that a high-end computer requires ,it still has incredible detail in Azeroth (WoWs world). Games that have graphics I can't stand are EQ2 and Vanguard. Those type of games world feel lifeless and the character models look like plastic barbie dolls. Everybody here on mmorpg.com usually hate WoW because its #1 mmorpg and usually people on forums have the tendency to hate mainstream things for some reason.
interesting...you did? i was thinking to wait until i get a new desktop pc this summer, but when one can actually play on your laptop... i might give it a shot already at release.
I have almost the same specs:
2.0 ghz C2D
2gig ram
7700 go gpu
xp
I think you could run it better then me but still probably youd be stuck on low like i was(Which still looks great in my opinion) that was at 1280x800 on a 15.4" so it looked great. I also ran it on a system with a 6800gs 2gigs ram 3ghz amd cpu, and xp. It ran a bit better on this system, and that was at a 1280x1024 resolution. Still I saw this on my friends beast of a pc and it was just incredible(better then Console games out now!) so I am seriously thinking of upgrading to a much better desktop for this title. No matter what people say Graphics DO improve a game...
Yes, Conan is way above the ability of the average range PC today. Most computers that people have been gaming on will simply not handle AoC at all. The average computer is over 3-years old and Conan will tax anything but a high end computer from over a year ago and will be unplayable to any real extent on any system greater than three years old.
That being said... So? I don't think that is a bad thing.
World of Worthless came out, as they say, at the right place at the right time. Computing power, graphics, bandwidth and the internet were coming together in the early 2000's. In the 1990's UO, EQ and Asheron's Call were all dealing with computers that had less power than a modern day cell phone.
WoW was there at the right time. It is a game that can be played on a toaster oven and by 2004 enough people now had internet access and a computer that could handle something the scale of WoW. People forget that a half a decade passed between EverQuest / Asheron's Call and the launch of Warcraft. During that time computers evolved and created a market that simply had never existed before.
Add to that the fact that there was a flood of Nintendo-style gamers suddenly arriving on the web and demanding a nintedno style MMO - Voila! Presto! you have WoW. There is a LAw of the MMO Gaming world that says, "You will never find a game that is as good as your first MMORPG." These nintendo kids all stumbled into the world of gaming at the time and place that WoW was born. They are hooked on a basic, nintendo-style lack of detail, shallow, and flavorless game... why? Because it was there and they were hungry.
AoC is now shinning a light in to the future of gaming. Will all the Wow-children come running? No. Will some, yes. Will some come running and find that their toaster oven can't play AoC? Yep... look around these fora, they are already here.
I would have to disagree on WoW graphics being shallow and flavorless. WoW has one of the best graphic artistic styles in the mmo market. They add a great flavor and special style to the game, and although WoW does not have graphics that a high-end computer requires ,it still has incredible detail in Azeroth (WoWs world). Games that have graphics I can't stand are EQ2 and Vanguard. Those type of games world feel lifeless and the character models look like plastic barbie dolls. Everybody here on mmorpg.com usually hate WoW because its #1 mmorpg and usually people on forums have the tendency to hate mainstream things for some reason.
I completely agree with you about VG and EQ2's graphics however AOC graphics are completely the opposite, they went the realistic route and they so, Esucceeded very muchverything in Hyboria just looks stunning, and the art direction is better then any Ive seen in my opinion, and that includes WOW. With all the settings maxed on a high resolution this game looks better then anything out there on consoles in my opinion. Only game I can think of that looks better off the top of my head is Crysis To be honest.
Yes, Conan is way above the ability of the average range PC today. Most computers that people have been gaming on will simply not handle AoC at all. The average computer is over 3-years old and Conan will tax anything but a high end computer from over a year ago and will be unplayable to any real extent on any system greater than three years old.
That being said... So? I don't think that is a bad thing.
World of Worthless came out, as they say, at the right place at the right time. Computing power, graphics, bandwidth and the internet were coming together in the early 2000's. In the 1990's UO, EQ and Asheron's Call were all dealing with computers that had less power than a modern day cell phone.
WoW was there at the right time. It is a game that can be played on a toaster oven and by 2004 enough people now had internet access and a computer that could handle something the scale of WoW. People forget that a half a decade passed between EverQuest / Asheron's Call and the launch of Warcraft. During that time computers evolved and created a market that simply had never existed before.
Add to that the fact that there was a flood of Nintendo-style gamers suddenly arriving on the web and demanding a nintedno style MMO - Voila! Presto! you have WoW. There is a LAw of the MMO Gaming world that says, "You will never find a game that is as good as your first MMORPG." These nintendo kids all stumbled into the world of gaming at the time and place that WoW was born. They are hooked on a basic, nintendo-style lack of detail, shallow, and flavorless game... why? Because it was there and they were hungry.
AoC is now shinning a light in to the future of gaming. Will all the Wow-children come running? No. Will some, yes. Will some come running and find that their toaster oven can't play AoC? Yep... look around these fora, they are already here.
I would have to disagree on WoW graphics being shallow and flavorless. WoW has one of the best graphic artistic styles in the mmo market. They add a great flavor and special style to the game, and although WoW does not have graphics that a high-end computer requires ,it still has incredible detail in Azeroth (WoWs world). Games that have graphics I can't stand are EQ2 and Vanguard. Those type of games world feel lifeless and the character models look like plastic barbie dolls. Everybody here on mmorpg.com usually hate WoW because its #1 mmorpg and usually people on forums have the tendency to hate mainstream things for some reason.
I completely agree with you about VG and EQ2's graphics however AOC graphics are completely the opposite, they went the realistic route and they so, Esucceeded very muchverything in Hyboria just looks stunning, and the art direction is better then any Ive seen in my opinion, and that includes WOW. With all the settings maxed on a high resolution this game looks better then anything out there on consoles in my opinion. Only game I can think of that looks better off the top of my head is Crysis To be honest.
I agree that AoC looks great.
my second system is very similar to yours
i have 2 gigs ram on it with a 100gig HD so not much difference.
my second system along with my main both ran the game very well. The one mentioned above ran it on low (which still looked amazing btw) with 30fps pretty solid.
my second system is quite improved but this shows what a pretty outdated system can do in AoC. it looked really good and ran surprisingly well
What I find odd more than anything else is when people try to argue over system specs... guys, if you own an 8600, I wouldn't consider that an average computer. Most run on things like an FX5200 (including my own, at least my old one) and have single core processors.
To the OP, I think it's pretty obvious what the answer is... yes, the specs for AoC will be too high for the average player. AoC isn't aiming towards the average player, at least not yet. They made this decision a while ago... they could go the easy route, like what WAR is doing, to guarantee the most subscribers. Or, they could offer the best quality at the cost of having the most successful game out there.
Tbh I love that AoC is doing this. I myself could care less how many subscribers there are as long as there is enough to play and feel immersed. I want quality... and after seeing every single beta video out at the moment of WAR... it looks almost exactly the same as WoW, which is just honest judgement. I'm not bashing WAR, trust me I'm expecting that game as much as AoC, but it's really taking the safe money route to gain the most subscribers... if my computer can handle either of the two, I'm choosing the one that is, generally, better. But people are going to go to WAR because it is the best their computers can handle, not necessarily because it is the best of the two, although many can argue. Which is fine, and I can't give full judgement of the game yet anyhow... it's got a couple months yet until release to add the "flesh" to the game, which alot of people are saying to defend it.
Then again, AoC may be onto something here. If they do keep themselves in the limelight long enough, when system specs are at a point where mid-range computers would be considered playable for this game, they could make this game into something big. But it will take time.
Would that argument not also sway to the fact that people who are interested in MMORPG's would most likely have a decent mid range computer and the more casual types would have say the lower end....
Hmm, good point Oriphus. I hadn't thought of that component to the equation. But I bet you are right.
I think FunCom is doing a neat thing. They are shooting for a different market than thepopulation in the "WoW to War" exodus that I expect later this fall. People are looking for something new. (And I don't agree with some of the people that the two dimentional fingerpainting graphics of WoW are the most artistic expression of the human spirit since since Van Gogh. Actually WoW looks a little Van Gogh-ish to me)
I believe AoC has brought us to a fork in the road. Some will continue down the WoW road toward War, others will take the more scenic route, the road less traveled perhaps, but it is taking us to where we as gamers have never gone before... (Why do I hear Star Trek music?)
"The reality of the poor in America isn't the difference between The Haves and The Have Nots, it is the difference between The Haves and The Have Lots."
Would that argument not also sway to the fact that people who are interested in MMORPG's would most likely have a decent mid range computer and the more casual types would have say the lower end....
Hmm, good point Oriphus. I hadn't thought of that component to the equation. But I bet you are right.
I think FunCom is doing a neat thing. They are shooting for a different market than thepopulation in the "WoW to War" exodus that I expect later this fall. People are looking for something new. (And I don't agree with some of the people that the two dimentional fingerpainting graphics of WoW are the most artistic expression of the human spirit since since Van Gogh. Actually WoW looks a little Van Gogh-ish to me)
I believe AoC has brought us to a fork in the road. Some will continue down the WoW road toward War, others will take the more scenic route, the road less traveled perhaps, but it is taking us to where we as gamers have never gone before... (Why do I hear Star Trek music?)
For the WoW looking to Van Gogh thing if it is being refering to my previous post, I did not mean that WoWs graphics are a work of art or anything but they arent horrible like you portray them to be and are actually have a better style then most mmorpgs out there. I'll post a comparison below between EQ2 and WoW as an example. So far I think AoC has the best art direction but before AoC no other mmorpg has been able to achieve the realistic look sucessfully.
i think this game perfects the realism vs artistic art, as well as having a kick ass game engine, i can play this on ultra high max settings, minus dx10 (since i have xp)
LOTRO
Forgot about Lotro, it has amazing graphics and art style but I was comparing WoW to a game released around its same launch frame.
ahh ok
"The reality of the poor in America isn't the difference between The Haves and The Have Nots, it is the difference between The Haves and The Have Lots."
Not including i-net connection though which is just as important.
interesting...you did? i was thinking to wait until i get a new desktop pc this summer, but when one can actually play on your laptop... i might give it a shot already at release.
I have almost the same specs:
2.0 ghz C2D
2gig ram
7700 go gpu
xp
I think you could run it better then me but still probably youd be stuck on low like i was(Which still looks great in my opinion) that was at 1280x800 on a 15.4" so it looked great. I also ran it on a system with a 6800gs 2gigs ram 3ghz amd cpu, and xp. It ran a bit better on this system, and that was at a 1280x1024 resolution. Still I saw this on my friends beast of a pc and it was just incredible(better then Console games out now!) so I am seriously thinking of upgrading to a much better desktop for this title. No matter what people say Graphics DO improve a game...
Thanks for your feedback. MMh...now i have a hard decision to make...if i should wait until my new desktop arrives or already start with my small lil` laptop. let's see.
from what i read from different people graphic card matters a lot. everyone having a 8800 is reporting it runs good, those with nvidia 8600s are mostly unhappy. from what i read even the older gen top of the line cards semem to run it better tahn 8600s.
About same is true for ATI cards, so if you have one of teh top cards you should be ok, but if you got one of the value cards you will be stuck with about 10-30 fps depending on how much is happening. This makes me curious about mobile gamers, 8600M has even less power than normal 8600 and nearly no laptops have 8800Ms built in.
So i really guess the performance of teh life version on mid range systems will be critical for the success of the game. If funcom can get the game to run steady 25-30fps on low settings on these systems then they have a chance at keeping these big group of gamers too. if pvp in busy areas and raiding gets a slideshow for these then i fear that the game won't get too many subscribers in first year.
Not including i-net connection though which is just as important.
I wonder how many of those would be interested in playing an MMO? And how many of those will be interested in playing AoC specifically? The potential customer base is kind of low, if you ask me.
------------------------------------------------
Playing: Final Fantasy Online: ARR, Destiny
Most memorable games for me: UO, GW1, LoTRO