How does the game look on minimum settings?

retrospectic · February 2007

I currently play World of Warcraft. One of the reasons I play WoW is because my computer has not been top-of-the-line for quite a long time. I don't have the funds to upgrade my computer for a while, but I am interested in the future of this game.

I am an EQ Vet, and regardless of all of the negative press, I am interested in a new game that "feels" like what EQ2 could have been.

If I do end up purchasing this game I would have to play on minimum settings. I am no stranger to the lack luster look of games with minimum shades, bad lighting, and poor animation jerking. I've can't even run WoW on full setting without my computer grinding like a coke addict's teeth.

So, how does Vanguard look with all the sliders to 0, all the settings to VERY LOW, and all of the other functions to the bare minimum?

SUMB44 · February 2007

Originally posted by retrospectic

I currently play World of Warcraft. One of the reasons I play WoW is because my computer has not been top-of-the-line for quite a long time. I don't have the funds to upgrade my computer for a while, but I am interested in the future of this game.
I am an EQ Vet, and regardless of all of the negative press, I am interested in a new game that "feels" like what EQ2 could have been.
If I do end up purchasing this game I would have to play on minimum settings. I am no stranger to the lack luster look of games with minimum shades, bad lighting, and poor animation jerking. I've can't even run WoW on full setting without my computer grinding like a coke addict's teeth.
So, how does Vanguard look with all the sliders to 0, all the settings to VERY LOW, and all of the other functions to the bare minimum?

Dude, NEVER ever admit you're a WoW player on these forums... it's the kiss of death...

Jackdog · February 2007

honestly not all that bad except for the water

Shoal · February 2007

Pretty much looks just like EQ2 with its sliders all the way down.

Pretty bad.

If I had to choose between playing V:SoH and EQ2, I would go with EQ2.

Good Hunting

cupertino · February 2007

looks worse than EQ1, trees/bushes are carboard cutouts, a 20 yard view distance, bland blurry texture..... just realy realy bad.

That was my impression on my radoen 9600 laptop.

retrospectic · February 2007

Originally posted by SUMB44

Originally posted by retrospectic

I currently play World of Warcraft. One of the reasons I play WoW is because my computer has not been top-of-the-line for quite a long time. I don't have the funds to upgrade my computer for a while, but I am interested in the future of this game.
I am an EQ Vet, and regardless of all of the negative press, I am interested in a new game that "feels" like what EQ2 could have been.
If I do end up purchasing this game I would have to play on minimum settings. I am no stranger to the lack luster look of games with minimum shades, bad lighting, and poor animation jerking. I've can't even run WoW on full setting without my computer grinding like a coke addict's teeth.
So, how does Vanguard look with all the sliders to 0, all the settings to VERY LOW, and all of the other functions to the bare minimum?

Dude, NEVER ever admit you're a WoW player on these forums... it's the kiss of death...

Haha, I've never been one to back down from some flames. Although, I am not the usual WoW player, either.

Stoneysilenc · February 2007

Looks like EQ1 but runs worse on a low end machine.

retrospectic · February 2007

Is it "playable"? Meaning, on a low end machine, could I actually successfully battle multiple creatures, or at least make a get away?

In another MMO beta I tried playing the game on lowest settings and multiple creatures attacking had two problems:

The sliders were so low I couldn't really see them attacking. They sort of stood near me and did damage
They started to video lag and running away was nearly impossible until I was a good ways away from their animations

Stoneysilenc · February 2007

Probably depends on how low of a machine you really have. Whether or not your in a group, etc... They have done some improvements since beta so I can't comment on the current situation.

stylee99 · February 2007

Originally posted by retrospectic

I currently play World of Warcraft. One of the reasons I play WoW is because my computer has not been top-of-the-line for quite a long time. I don't have the funds to upgrade my computer for a while, but I am interested in the future of this game.
I am an EQ Vet, and regardless of all of the negative press, I am interested in a new game that "feels" like what EQ2 could have been.
If I do end up purchasing this game I would have to play on minimum settings. I am no stranger to the lack luster look of games with minimum shades, bad lighting, and poor animation jerking. I've can't even run WoW on full setting without my computer grinding like a coke addict's teeth.
So, how does Vanguard look with all the sliders to 0, all the settings to VERY LOW, and all of the other functions to the bare minimum?

The negative press is mainly from posts on this website.

On topic, it won't look good. I don't have a screenshot available on-hand at that setting, but there is a post probably a few pages back that has one. And if you can't run WoW on full settings, I'm not realy sure how well you'll do with VG on low settings. Feel like posting your specs?

KombatJesus · February 2007

LMFAO@ your avatar. ..

Vanguard looks like crap with all of the sliders down. . .with allof the sliders down it looks like EQ. With VG though if you can get the game to run, the most you may need to do is turn off some settings to 50 and turn shadows all of the way off.

RayVic · February 2007

Parrot, what you signature says in Latin is : Woe to the total vanquised (and) palm, so that acolytes. If the translation doesn't make any sense that's because neither does the Latin.

vylo · February 2007

Post your specs. The video card is the most important thing. If it isn't at least a 6 series, I wouldn't bother trying.

Eranu · February 2007

On my laptop which is for all intents and purposes good spec APART from my awful ati x600 mobility graphics card i can only really play it on highest performance settings and to be honest it looks pretty sh1te.

Luckily someone was kind enough to give me a buddy key so i could try before i buy and im glad i did. The game itself i think will shape up pretty well however without having an upper middle to high spec machine you will not get alot out of it.

Maybe i will come back to it when i have a spare grand to spend on a new machine

boonani · February 2007

Would you say a FX5900 is no good and to to even bother trying to play?

Everith · February 2007

Yea unfortunatly this game was optimized for MAX and medium settings it really looks pretty bad on low. But get a buddy key and see what your PC can actually handle.

HensenLiros · February 2007

The mountains and trees look really bad, the water looks pretty horrible actually.

But I bet you could play with like 30% with the quality settings without laggings badly. I got a athlon 64 3700+ ati radeon 9550 and 1gig ram and I ran it on like 45% while I was playing it. But make sure you want to play the game before buying it, you may not like it (like I did).

Kinslayer5 · February 2007

i don't know about lowest, but i play on the second lowest. still looks amazing, hands down best graphics out there... and this coming from an x l2 player.

Snuvs · February 2007

I have a Geforce FX5500 and I wasn't even able to move around at all, since its a PCI card thats even worse. I would say that if it is a fx series card then you wont have any luck. Good thing I did the beta thing and cancelled before I had to pay.

Masta22 · February 2007

when i put it on the highest setting and top resolution my fps is bit crap really. I do have a radeon x850 xt PE, 2gb ram and a p4 3.6ghz. Anyway how can I increase performance? any methods. Does anything need an upgrade at all or is it fine?

Caligulug · February 2007

Think Pitfall from the old Atari consol lol. Or maybe pong?

Cal

DuraheLL · February 2007

Originally posted by Jackdog

honestly not all that bad except for the water

And the trees.... OMG the trees! Have you seen them?

They are paperwalls!!!

FlamingBoi · February 2007

how bout mine? AMD x2 3600+ , 3gb ram, geforce 7100 GS, how would u think i'll run the game? =x

Cokey · February 2007

FYI I have an Athlon64 3000, 1Gig DDR400 and nVidia 6800GT (2.5 years old) - the game is playable on high performance out in the wild, but in high population and stressful areas (cities, villages, large camps) - it becomes almost unplayable even on highest perf. This means a lot of stuttering and single figure frame rates - in these areas I'm happy with FPS in the teens.

And the game looks pretty crap on highest performance settings (ie lowest graphics settings). World of Warcraft looks better than this game on highest perf - but notch up the slider a tick or two and it becomes the best looking (with awe inspiring vistas and moments) MMO out there.

I'm upgrading my computer in the next couple of days specifically because the game runs so poorly on my current rig.

nokturnis · February 2007

I agree if you have too run it on low sett high perf then yuk really ugly. Run it on high setting high quality and omg is it wonderful such a great looking game ill also be upgrading.

Jackdog · February 2007

this was taken on balanced the last day of open beta, E6600 @3.0 MHz, 7900GT overclocked, 2 gigs DDR2.

Howdy, Stranger!

How does the game look on minimum settings?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

How does the game look on minimum settings?

Comments