Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Just read it please.

2»

Comments

  • MuffinStumpMuffinStump Member UncommonPosts: 474

    ATI Card comparison

    I thought this might help the discussion.

    Note the explanatory text following the chart. There is a lot of movement in the list in terms of power. It isn't a linear progression of ability following the increasing Product Number series.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    "Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
    image

  • FariicFariic Member Posts: 1,546
    Originally posted by MuffinStump


    ATI Card comparison
    I thought this might help the discussion.
    Note the explanatory text following the chart. There is a lot of movement in the list in terms of power. It isn't a linear progression of ability following the increasing Product Number series.
     



    GREAT link man.  I couldn't for the life of me think of a comparison site, and I'm to lazy to look. :)  It's also to much to think about and write to explain the way cards progress.

    And I hate you to man.  After looking at the specs for my card compared to others it really made me sad.  So sad.  Can't wait for my tax check so I can upgrade :)

    Edit:  LOL, I remember when the 9800pro was like 500 dollars

  • JTJT Member Posts: 401


    Originally posted by JK-Kanosi
    Originally posted by Strangerr video card = ati radeon 9800
    What I mean by "without any problems " is just exacly that , no system lag whatsoever , sometimes I can get like a 1-2 sec lag when i enter a new area and it start to load up the terrain or when i eneter a city (halgrad ?) and it has to load all the buildings and ppl but after it does that (which really takes a few sec ) everything is smooth and i can run/walk/fight/jump/cast/whatever without having to worry about system lag. My fps is usually constant never dropped below 10fps , usually arround 17-20 which is enough for a smooth play .
    Like I said I could even go up to high performance but then when fighting multiple opponents it can get a bit laggy so I prefer to play safe on balanced without any lag (system/graphic lag of course).
     
    What does all the ATI stuff translate to for Nvidia and Intel users? I have a 3.0 Ghz Dual-Core comp with 1gig of ram and a Geforce 7300 vid card. I was pretty much told I couldn't run this game with 1 gig of ram and with my vid card could only use setting no greater than balanced if I was lucky. I was told that it would be ideal to have 2gigs and a Geforce 7900 GT vid card to run it well on balanced settings.
    So if what I heard is true, your system is the exception. It would take a lot more than one person posting their low specced computer for me to think it is okay for me to play it on the computer I already have without upgrading it, because there are exceptions to every rule. I am more interested in what the standard is, not the exception. What is the standard for running this game smoothly at balanced settings, without tweaks, and grouped up with others? That is what I want to know. If I can't play every aspect of the game (including raids) with my current computer on balanced settings, I will wait until prices drop on memory and video cards. There is no need for me to rush out and upgrade the computer I just bought 6 months ago when I have a family and a son that could use $300 for something better. Especially when that computer can play every other MMORPG on the market at maxed settings, with the exception of EQ2, which I can play on High settings without a problem and the game looks outstanding.

    I run the game with a P4 2.4ghz, 1mg ram and a 6200 OC nvidia.

  • JTJT Member Posts: 401


    Originally posted by Viktaal
    Well, where do I begin. Let's just say I do not consider 12fps PLAYABLE. That my friend is a slideshow. How long are your timeouts when you cross a chunk line? I bet - long enough to go make some popcorn, and grab a beverage. If you call that playable, well enjoy. To me that is pure crap and I wouldn't put myself thru such torture. I also noticed you were alone. Show me a pic of how playable the game is to you in a 5-6man group area. I have a much faster cpu, same GPU, and more ram. When I went into a "group" area I averaged 3fps.  Again, to me that is unacceptable and I refuse to dole out cash in support of such a frustrating experience.Am I to assume you get no hitching, 30sec + chunk lag, and lockups as you enter a town? Post a video of your gameplay please. I would really be interested in seeing it.  If you manage, get in a full group - 4 dot mob area and take a screenie. Show me a screenie with more than 5 other pc's in veiw. I know what I had for performance, and to me it was attrocious for a "release" version. If you truly enjoy that experience, and are willing to PAY for it - then mad props.

    I average 5-7fps and it is playable. The chunk lines take less time to load up than if I was playing EQ2 loading up each zone or loading up dungeons in WoW. I do get hitching some nights and some nights it's smooth. It's easier to put up with this than to play something as boring as say...WoW.

  • DabbleDabble Member Posts: 1,043
    The UI looks exactly like WoW's
  • FariicFariic Member Posts: 1,546
    Originally posted by Viktaal

    Well, where do I begin. Let's just say I do not consider 12fps PLAYABLE. That my friend is a slideshow. How long are your timeouts when you cross a chunk line? I bet - long enough to go make some popcorn, and grab a beverage. If you call that playable, well enjoy. To me that is pure crap and I wouldn't put myself thru such torture.



    I also noticed you were alone. Show me a pic of how playable the game is to you in a 5-6man group area. I have a much faster cpu, same GPU, and more ram. When I went into a "group" area I averaged 3fps.  Again, to me that is unacceptable and I refuse to dole out cash in support of such a frustrating experience.



    Am I to assume you get no hitching, 30sec + chunk lag, and lockups as you enter a town? Post a video of your gameplay please. I would really be interested in seeing it.  If you manage, get in a full group - 4 dot mob area and take a screenie. Show me a screenie with more than 5 other pc's in veiw. I know what I had for performance, and to me it was attrocious for a "release" version.



    If you truly enjoy that experience, and are willing to PAY for it - then mad props.



    What were you running the game on?  What were your setting at in game?  Why do you think that a software developer should only write software for low to mid range systems?  It is your DUTY as a PC gamer to upgrade your system.  If you don't mind getting poor performance then you can stick with the hardware you currently have.  If you wish to progress with the gaming industry you will have to upgrade.  Maybe not today, but soon; sooner then you think.

    New operating system, new DX, and a new sound format means you'll be upgrading if you want to play the newest games.  Once the devolopers embrace Vista you're in for some real trouble.

    Look at the consoles and ask yourself why a developer would continue to games with outdated graphics potential?  It's either adapt or die in the gaming industry; both for the developers and the gamers, and with the new consoles, wich will drop in price in a year, the developers are going to adapt.  Because it's either that or the PC gaming industry will take a HUGE hit.

  • majochmajoch Member Posts: 599
    Yeah Blizzard stole it from Vangaurd who in turn had it stolen from them by Star Wars Galaxies who post NGE stole it from Blizzard. 
  • DabbleDabble Member Posts: 1,043
    Originally posted by matraque 

      And sorry, VG is not flashy like other games.

     

    Ok, then I'll go play a 'flashy' game.  How innovate of Sigil to make a game that doesn't look good compared to other mmo's.

     

     

    Edit:  I found this quote from the Game Spy review (I think we can all agree that they are reputable) that should put this whole thread to bed:

    If you have a high end machine, you're going to want to turn up many of the game's details to see the most that the game has to offer. Even on our office's high-end machine equipped with a GeForce 8800 GTX we still encountered stuttering frame rates and assorted other graphical issues. Trees would flicker in and out of view, and the clip plane distance was often auto-set to 0, forcing us to set our options to the default settings and/or restart. With all our details maxed out, we were still unimpressed by the game's bland textures. Vanguard takes a realistic approach to graphics, shying away from World of Warcraft's more cartoony feel, but the realism seems to have stymied the creative direction of the game's visuals. What should be gloriously impressive fantasy architecture instead looks uninspired. There are a few interesting set pieces to discover, but much of the game has you exploring muted backgrounds and boring environments ad infinitum. It feels like an awful waste of the 17GB (if you can believe it, the minimum system requirement is 20GB) that Vanguard is currently occupying on my hard drive.



  • XImpalerXXImpalerX Member UncommonPosts: 606
    Originally posted by Dabble

    Originally posted by matraque 

      And sorry, VG is not flashy like other games.

     

    Ok, then I'll go play a 'flashy' game.  How innovate of Sigil to make a game that doesn't look good compared to other mmo's.

     

     

    Edit:  I found this quote from the Game Spy review (I think we can all agree that they are reputable) that should put this whole thread to bed:

    If you have a high end machine, you're going to want to turn up many of the game's details to see the most that the game has to offer. Even on our office's high-end machine equipped with a GeForce 8800 GTX we still encountered stuttering frame rates and assorted other graphical issues. Trees would flicker in and out of view, and the clip plane distance was often auto-set to 0, forcing us to set our options to the default settings and/or restart. With all our details maxed out, we were still unimpressed by the game's bland textures. Vanguard takes a realistic approach to graphics, shying away from World of Warcraft's more cartoony feel, but the realism seems to have stymied the creative direction of the game's visuals. What should be gloriously impressive fantasy architecture instead looks uninspired. There are a few interesting set pieces to discover, but much of the game has you exploring muted backgrounds and boring environments ad infinitum. It feels like an awful waste of the 17GB (if you can believe it, the minimum system requirement is 20GB) that Vanguard is currently occupying on my hard drive.





       What makes Gamespy Reputable?  Formulate your own review of the games you play by actually playing them and having an open mind.

      Gamespy reviews are reviewed by 1 person (Gerald Villoria for VG) who is giving his opinion based on his playing.  and how can any1 give an honest review of any game without playing it from Start to Finish?  He is basically reviewing the Graphics and not the game..which is probably more important to him.



        "The question now is whether or not players will be patient enough to stick to the game as it improves."



      " If you were a fan of the original EverQuest, or find World of Warcraft to be unchallenging to the point of boredom, then Vanguard was made with you in mind." (if thats not you then stop whining about it)

  • DabbleDabble Member Posts: 1,043
    Originally posted by XImpalerX

    Originally posted by Dabble

    Originally posted by matraque 

      And sorry, VG is not flashy like other games.

     

    Ok, then I'll go play a 'flashy' game.  How innovate of Sigil to make a game that doesn't look good compared to other mmo's.

     

     

    Edit:  I found this quote from the Game Spy review (I think we can all agree that they are reputable) that should put this whole thread to bed:

    If you have a high end machine, you're going to want to turn up many of the game's details to see the most that the game has to offer. Even on our office's high-end machine equipped with a GeForce 8800 GTX we still encountered stuttering frame rates and assorted other graphical issues. Trees would flicker in and out of view, and the clip plane distance was often auto-set to 0, forcing us to set our options to the default settings and/or restart. With all our details maxed out, we were still unimpressed by the game's bland textures. Vanguard takes a realistic approach to graphics, shying away from World of Warcraft's more cartoony feel, but the realism seems to have stymied the creative direction of the game's visuals. What should be gloriously impressive fantasy architecture instead looks uninspired. There are a few interesting set pieces to discover, but much of the game has you exploring muted backgrounds and boring environments ad infinitum. It feels like an awful waste of the 17GB (if you can believe it, the minimum system requirement is 20GB) that Vanguard is currently occupying on my hard drive.





       What makes Gamespy Reputable?  Formulate your own review of the games you play by actually playing them and having an open mind.

      Gamespy reviews are reviewed by 1 person (Gerald Villoria for VG) who is giving his opinion based on his playing.  and how can any1 give an honest review of any game without playing it from Start to Finish?  He is basically reviewing the Graphics and not the game..which is probably more important to him.



        "The question now is whether or not players will be patient enough to stick to the game as it improves."



      " If you were a fan of the original EverQuest, or find World of Warcraft to be unchallenging to the point of boredom, then Vanguard was made with you in mind." (if thats not you then stop whining about it)



    I agree with you.

    However, the OP of this thread was about how it runs on such and such systems and whatnot.  That is why I pasted that part of the review.  The reviewer does go on to say good things about the gameplay and in the end gives the game a 3 out of 5, so he didn't slam the game. 

    My postion is this:

    Hatebois or Fanbois do no good here.  More so the Fanbois.  I have a hard time believeing that people would waste their time trashing a game they no nothing about just for fun.  And in the end, if that is what they are doing, they will be found out as such soon enough.

    The Fanbois, however, are down-right vile.  It's one thing to say, "Hey I like this game but there are a lot of bugs, it doesn't run well on my system and I'm not crazy about the graphics but all in all I think it will be great."  It is quite another to mislead people into thinking that this game is the second coming of christ just so you can have people join you.  I'm not saying that is what you are trying to do.  But with DnL debacle, there were many Fanbois who for some bizzare reason (Anarchy Art included) would try and convince people to submerge themselves into that pile of feces. 

    That type of behaviour completely negates the whole point of this website.  What I think the point of these boards is to discuss, debate and learn what the next or current big thing is and what is not.  Not to delude and deceive eachother.

  • DDM_redeyeDDM_redeye Member Posts: 10
    right on
  • pollux667pollux667 Member UncommonPosts: 27
    Originally posted by XImpalerX

    Originally posted by Dabble

    Originally posted by matraque 

      And sorry, VG is not flashy like other games.

     

    Ok, then I'll go play a 'flashy' game.  How innovate of Sigil to make a game that doesn't look good compared to other mmo's.

     

     

    Edit:  I found this quote from the Game Spy review (I think we can all agree that they are reputable) that should put this whole thread to bed:

    If you have a high end machine, you're going to want to turn up many of the game's details to see the most that the game has to offer. Even on our office's high-end machine equipped with a GeForce 8800 GTX we still encountered stuttering frame rates and assorted other graphical issues. Trees would flicker in and out of view, and the clip plane distance was often auto-set to 0, forcing us to set our options to the default settings and/or restart. With all our details maxed out, we were still unimpressed by the game's bland textures. Vanguard takes a realistic approach to graphics, shying away from World of Warcraft's more cartoony feel, but the realism seems to have stymied the creative direction of the game's visuals. What should be gloriously impressive fantasy architecture instead looks uninspired. There are a few interesting set pieces to discover, but much of the game has you exploring muted backgrounds and boring environments ad infinitum. It feels like an awful waste of the 17GB (if you can believe it, the minimum system requirement is 20GB) that Vanguard is currently occupying on my hard drive.





       What makes Gamespy Reputable?  Formulate your own review of the games you play by actually playing them and having an open mind.

      Gamespy reviews are reviewed by 1 person (Gerald Villoria for VG) who is giving his opinion based on his playing.  and how can any1 give an honest review of any game without playing it from Start to Finish?  He is basically reviewing the Graphics and not the game..which is probably more important to him.



        "The question now is whether or not players will be patient enough to stick to the game as it improves."



      " If you were a fan of the original EverQuest, or find World of Warcraft to be unchallenging to the point of boredom, then Vanguard was made with you in mind." (if thats not you then stop whining about it) 



    marketing says it was made for me, but the end results is a big deception, the gamespy review nails is right on, graphics are not the most important part of a game for me, but the people saying it was a good idea to release the game in its current state are self-delusional.

     


  • StrangerrStrangerr Member Posts: 32

    So nice to see that the topic got so much attention (didnt mean to :P) well I guess the only way for You guys to see if the game is playable or not on my machine is doing the clip then . Could anybody please recomend a good program to make clips out of games and would be good if it let me record a clip longer than 30sec cause i remember most of them dont let you do that when used as a demo verison.

    Just to clarify , I played on this machine almost every if not every mmo out there and had never any problems with performance .

    Granted I cant run the game on super hyper details but it still looks good (at least for me) and it is fully playable. I guess like somebody stated in some previous post it all depends on how somebody sees "playable" . For me its enough that when I fight multiple mobs with a group of 5 ppl (max that i had for now) i dont get any system lag and dont wake up dead after that :)

  • JakshafterJakshafter Member Posts: 21

    I can play the game solid in balanced with my old comp.

    I got a dell 4500 (june 2002) 

    p4 2.8 400FSB<---sucks

    2 gigs pc 2700 ram<----sucks,

    geforce 7600 gs 256mb AGP 4X<-----SUCKS BAD

    My comp is old and very dated and i can play the game fine.

    www.internetsbox.com/soapbox

Sign In or Register to comment.