Also, for the most part my arguments have been concerned more with the concept that high tech demands have no business in the MMO genre in general rather than debating the particular merits of AoC specifically, since until release it's difficult to gauge for sure exactly how successfully they'll hit their target.
Thank you for your reply, I think that is a good summary of the interesting issue.
Not quite. I believe Funcom have correctly perceived that many (MMO)RPG players have grown tired of playing games where everything is completely determined for you by behind-the-scenes dice rolls, to the point where you don't really have to dedicate much of your attention towards playing the game (which seems to defeat the purpose of playing in the first place). They are certainly not the first to introduce a more action-oriented gameplay style to a RPG, but this certainly doesn't amount to a move towards FPS gaming. It's still firmly a RPG-style game in many senses, albeit one that requires your complete concentration and a little hand-eye coordination. And really, when was the last time you saw a significant part of the playerbase truly "roleplaying" in any of the MMORPGs currently on the market?
I'm sorry, I was unclear. I meant that the PC/FPS crowd is the market most likely to want the graphical advances and buy the hardware for it. As you say, AoC is not an FPS and that is exactly why I question the strategy. It's a small, highly competitive market to begin with, one that gets more coverage than its size warrants, and the hardcore PC/FPS players I know are no fans of the "dumbed-down" MMORPG genre.
As for FPS players being the only ones who need/choose to upgrade their PCs at least every couple of years (which is the time frame we're talking about here, since AoC runs fine on a 2yr old computer), I don't believe this is the case at all. Take a look at the RTS, RPG, driving, adventure and even sim games that have released in the last year - think you'd find in most cases if your rig is more than 2 years old, you'll be dialing down the settings significantly to get playable performance. Unless Flash games are your bag, of course.
As a RTS/RPG/sim fan, I've found that companies regularly cater to my old hardware. I can't speak to driving and adventure games, but I think of those as console strongholds along with fighters and sports. While I enjoy FPS games too, they clearly put up a sign that says "upgrade all ye who enter here". I could upgrade, but, like most of the family-kids-professional people I know, it's not worth it to me. There's nothing wrong with that, only a comment on who their market is. From all the marketing I have seen, beta flame wars aside, AoC is putting up that same sign.
1. I'm not so sure that's true at all - I think you've seriously underestimated the interest in AoC (don't let the users on MMORPG.com be your only benchmark). I think a huge number of people will at least try the retail edition of Conan, either by buying a copy themselves or using one of the many tens of thousands of buddy keys that will be floating around out there (5 keys per preorder copy wasn't it?). Whether they choose to subscribe themselves is another story, but again that won't only be due to performance issues. The game was never going to have the low-maintenance mass appeal of WoW, Funcom have stated this from the outset (and indeed have deliberately attempted to limit their potential market to the 18+ age group). I'm inclined to think that more than a few people will be pleasantly surprised with their computer's ability to pay this game, if (and I know it's a BIG if) Funcom manage to iron out the bigger engine-based issues (chunking, crashing etc).
That's funny, I would have said the opposite - don't let the users on MMORPG.com be your benchmark because we are few and the most likely people to upgrade our hardware to play an MMORPG. I think you are correct about the possibilities of people trying it and finding out what the real deal is, which again makes me wonder if Funcom shot themselves in the foot by putting up a perceived barrier. Assuming a game with this kind of funding and expectations would see slow growth as failure, it comes down to whether the increase in customers who hear "good graphics" outweighs the decrease from "high specs".
2. That's true enough, and indeed it's the reason for the performance issues that exist in the Beta at the moment. But just because something seems difficult or over-complicated, doesn't mean it can't be done. Funcom have set themselves an ambitious target and have gambled heavily that they will overcome it. We'll have to wait to see if they succeed, but it's certainly possibly and in general I'd say adopting a defeatist attitude never helped progress in any field.
Certainly. I think some people here, myself included, are more likely to be frustrated that a solid dev team with good funding chose to gamble on graphics instead of game play changes. Real AI, dynamic world systems, etc...
3. As in 1. above, I don't think Funcom are pitching at FPS gamers at all. I think they'll find a comfortable and reasonably sized market within the sick-of-current-MMO/RPG-gameplay-<2yr old-system-owner-low-fantasy-fan user base. Certainly not universal, but then it was never trying to be "E for Everyone". Also don't forget that this game will also (eventually) be releasing on XBox - unless they completely screw up their programming, this should be a far simpler platform to code for and thus will render the "only rich gamers with high-end rigs can play this game" argument meaningless.
As I said, I don't think they're pitching to the FPS crowd so much as targeting their appeal at the FPS crowd. XBOX would make a huge difference because the markets are all different there. If their real strategy is XBOX and all this is just a big test of sorts, then they're potentially geniuses. Same old diku formula with better graphics on a console is a risk well worth taking, although it sucks exactly for us old timers who are sick of the formula.
I have to agree with you that Funcom probably did misjudge where we'd be as PC owners in 2008, but not by much (though indeed if they'd released in 2007 as they'd originally planned then they would have been that much further off the mark, it's true). In doing so they've created problems for themselves, but I don't think these problems are insurmountable by any means. World of Warcraft played it incredibly safe when they engineered their MMO engine, and its subsequent colossal success has if anything been a blow to what could have been a much more progressive and experimental genre of gaming. Investors (who are not gamers and only care about the bottom line) have seen the numbers and dream of similar glory, so they put a lot of pressure on developers to compromise their creative concepts in favour of mass appeal. Sure Funcom isn't revolutionising the genre, but they are trying to make a couple of significant changes (combat interactivity and graphics/art direction) in an effort to make their product more immersive and ultimately successful. To say that they shouldn't be trying to do this feels pretty narrow-minded to me, and the fact that it's certainly not going to be the failure Vanguard was means that even if it isn't a staggering success it will still do well enough to hopefully encourage a little more much-needed lateral thinking and boundary-pushing in this godforsaken industry.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but disagree with the direction. Independent, niche games are most likely to bring creativity and lateral thinking. WoW hurt that by creating the expectation of a huge player base. If AoC succeeds, it will make it even worse by raising the graphics/production bar higher. But whether AoC is helping or hurting the industry is a different discussion.
Someone was going to up the graphics bar, question is whether Funcom jumped the gun.
[Lots of interesting and valid points, many of which I don't particularly disagree with and others which will only be resolved by time.]
Y'know, the more I think about it the more I suspect that the real success of Conan will be on the XBox, and that the PC release could almost be considered (by the very cynical) as a kind of extended Open Beta. After all, as you so rightly said AoC is more or less fairly similar to many MMOs that already exist, albeit with a lot more pace under the hood and a beautiful shiny new lick o' paint.
For those of us who've played more than their fair share of the genre already, it is a step along the road (in my opinion an important one, and one I'll thoroughly enjoy). For most console gamers though, who've never been tempted into RPG territory because of the slow gameplay, lack of action and competition and comparatively subpar graphics, Conan will quite possibly stand out as an attractive prospect. Assuming the engine runs smoothly on that platform, it will most certainly stand up against other console titles sporting stunning visuals and action-based gameplay as it does. Think this is where Funcom really will be taking it to the bank.
And who knows, Microsoft might be hoping that it'll help boost sales of their console from would-be PC players thwarted by the high tech requirements. Surely even working dads like you can afford to spring for an XBox now and again...?
[Lots of interesting and valid points, many of which I don't particularly disagree with and others which will only be resolved by time.]
Y'know, the more I think about it the more I suspect that the real success of Conan will be on the XBox, and that the PC release could almost be considered (by the very cynical) as a kind of extended Open Beta. After all, as you so rightly said AoC is more or less fairly similar to many MMOs that already exist, albeit with a lot more pace under the hood and a beautiful shiny new lick o' paint.
For those of us who've played more than their fair share of the genre already, it is a step along the road (in my opinion an important one, and one I'll thoroughly enjoy). For most console gamers though, who've never been tempted into RPG territory because of the slow gameplay, lack of action and competition and comparatively subpar graphics, Conan will quite possibly stand out as an attractive prospect. Assuming the engine runs smoothly on that platform, it will most certainly stand up against other console titles sporting stunning visuals and action-based gameplay as it does. Think this is where Funcom really will be taking it to the bank.
And who knows, Microsoft might be hoping that it'll help boost sales of their console from would-be PC players thwarted by the high tech requirements. Surely even working dads like you can afford to spring for an XBox now and again...?
Well said. One of my good WoW buddies "ran the numbers" after we quit and decided to buy a cheap XBox and spend the next year or two getting old games off ebay instead of looking for a new PC game to play. So far he's looked brilliant while I'm here playing forumcraft and waiting for a revolution that's probably 5-10 years off.
When I want a game with wow graphics, I play on my old Amiga =(
Yes you do that. The MINORITY of players would agree with you.
The rest play what they think is fun out there. WoW, if anything, has proved that.
blizznet kiddies.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
If you recall when Warcraft came out, it was pretty much impossible to move in the major cities because of the graphics issues. Also, Wow had a patch at least every week for months/years.
Heh, been so long I'd almost forgotten the painful lagfest that was Ironforge c.2006.
No, people with very weak computers had severe lag issues in Ironforge. Mine was in the higher end back in the day and I rarely had problems. Sure, it lagged a bit...but nothing that ever effected gameplay, or kept me from going there. (unlike the Jita system in EVE)
But yes, they did issue a patch a week, and there were many issues during those first 6 months...which has been true of any game I've played.... so no big deal. AOC will probably be no different.
if you were on the hyjal server - you lagged - period. IF you could even log on.
but grats on being one of the uber two people who DIDN'T lag those first six months in wow. i still don't think there are any people that didn't lag, just people that "claim" to have not lagged.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Oh God! I spent more times lodaing than leveling. I think when I reached 8th level in the AOC Open Beta, if it wasn't for the instancing, I would of been 13. Hell, even to take a crap in the game is an instancing experience of 7 to 10 minutes. Then it hitched during the crapping process continually.
Speaking of crap, the above post is full of it.
Loading in AoC is quick if you have a newer pc. But I can see warhammer is going for the lowest common denominator with its cartoony wow graphics. Did they actually hire artists away from Blizzard? Cause it sure as heck looks like it.
i like this argument. it worked GREAT for vanguard. i mean, vanguard is probably still saying that people just need newer computers to experience it's awesomeness. and look at it's subs - isn't vanguard up to like 500 million monthly subs now?
yup, the "your computer sucks too much to play this game" mindset really does work, just look at vanguard.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
2. If you have to point out what you find is wrong with AoC, which plenty of people have, why on earth is it in the Warhammer forum?
Players like different things, different games and different aspects of games. That is why there are so many different games - they appeal to different people. If you don't like a game, great. Someone else does.
Not the place, and not worth reading/writing/arguing about.
Well, actually it proved several things: 1. 2008 video cards are just not powerful enough to run an MMORPG using "realistic" graphics engine. At least not in MMO mode. I mean look at the 88800 Ultra. A card released 18 months ago and still nothing can beat it. I remember times where you bought the best card only for it to be crap a year later. Sure Crysis looks great at full settings but only 0.1% of PC gamers have a rig that can run that decently (read MAX settings in DX10). And Crytek only had to deal with the engine and AI. No quests, no balancing, no crowded areas. In short, do the decent thing and stick to cartoony graphics as in WAR, LOTRO and WOW. 2. The best part in an MMO is the fact that you feel like you are a character in a parallel world. A seamless world just waiting for you to discover it. So what is the last thing you need in it? Loading screens. That is your greatest enemy. And AoC is basically a loading screen experience spiced up with some gameplay. I kid you not. That is why with all its shitty graphics people still play WOW. You can take a horse and run from Booty Bay to the Eastern Plaguelands without ever seeing a single loading screen. Try that in AoC. 3. Releasing a game that requires a high end computer to run at medium settings goes against the whole point of an MMO (FYI the first M stands for Massive). Anyone with a computer older than 2 years will not be able to play this game at all. Sure some people run dual 8800 GTS in SLI mode, but even them don't run the game very smoothly. These problems can be reduced after release, but a crappy game engine is a crappy game engine. If WAR can avoid the loading screen plague and have the game running on average machines, it will have a decent shot at success. If the gameplay and combat are good of course
Stop crying cause you have a shitty computer. AOC runs amazingly good on a $400 computer.
And the game is aimed for an adult audiance, so move along .... Lastest patches has made miracles. Zoning takes between 2-5 seconds
Oh God! I spent more times lodaing than leveling. I think when I reached 8th level in the AOC Open Beta, if it wasn't for the instancing, I would of been 13. Hell, even to take a crap in the game is an instancing experience of 7 to 10 minutes. Then it hitched during the crapping process continually.
Speaking of crap, the above post is full of it.
Loading in AoC is quick if you have a newer pc. But I can see warhammer is going for the lowest common denominator with its cartoony wow graphics. Did they actually hire artists away from Blizzard? Cause it sure as heck looks like it.
what good is AoC graphx if the game play sucks? Shouldnt u be playing beta instead of trolling WAR board?
I've never understood why developers don't realize this is the reason consoles are eating their lunch. If your game can't run on commonly available hardware it's an overpriced coaster.
You're exactly right.
AoC is even more demanding than VSoH. What the hell were they thinking. Anyone in beta right now knows how smooth it runs....like sandpaper.
I'm skipping the entire thread and addressing the OP:
1. & 2. They are powerful enough. I was running it using a single 8800 GT with 512/mb DDR3, and 4 gigs of high speed DDR2 system RAM. I ran a fairly consistent 30 fps without SLi or multi-core support enabled. Oh, right, and the game was running in DEBUG MODE. Beta, anyone heard of it? My load times were almost always brief. Most peoples' problems stemmed from the fact they did not have enough RAM. The game, just sitting there doing nothing, uses close to 2GB in some places. RAM is cheap, if you have an awesome video card and are trying to play newer games with 2gb of system RAM, you need to get real. Just because a pseudo-seamless environment is right for WoW does not mean it is right for other games.
3. Again, you are wrong. There were people running the game with GeForce 6800's. My old computer with an 8x AGP 6800 could probably run AoC with a RAM upgrade. I would recommend shader model 2.0, no AA, no AS, shadows off, and med or low texture quality, but it would run fine. There were a lot of people saying that upgrading their drivers to nVidia's current beta drivers increased performance dramatically as well.
Bottom line, unless you extensively troubleshooted your crappy performance, and made allowances for the fact it was a beta client running in debug mode, you need to place a big part of the blame on yourself. Personally, I had more troubles with server lag, but I understood this was a stress test. Looks like they stressed the servers.
And well WoW graphics might be simple and need low spec system, but the game is normally very buggy in terms of system crashes, for example wow doesnt run at all with the new 9xxx and 8xxx Nvidia Graphics, normally will generate the BLACK SCREEN error from doom.
Sorry I just had to laugh at this.... ROFL
I have yet to see any semi-decent computer built in the last 4 years that has been unable to run WOW well... As for the new 8xxxx and 9xxxx graphics cards, they SMOKE the game. They look great at max settings! I have tried both and have had no problems...
Sorry, but if this is your experience, you are doing something wrong.
2. If you have to point out what you find is wrong with AoC, which plenty of people have, why on earth is it in the Warhammer forum? Players like different things, different games and different aspects of games. That is why there are so many different games - they appeal to different people. If you don't like a game, great. Someone else does. Not the place, and not worth reading/writing/arguing about.
why is this in the warhammer board? O.o
but it seems like 99% of performance problems have been fixed with the "miracle patch"
but like this guy up here said. "Players like different things, different games and different aspects of games. That is why there are so many different games - they appeal to different people. If you don't like a game, great. Someone else does.
Not the place, and not worth reading/writing/arguing about."
This is one of my first post on these boards so you can mock my inexperience all you wish. AoC will be a "niche" title as it is. Nothing is wrong with that. It's appeal is like comparing Eq2 vs WoW. One focus on graphic and world features..while the other has a wider audience due to less graphic restrictions and...well...its EA-Mythic.
This is one of my first post on these boards so you can mock my inexperience all you wish. AoC will be a "niche" title as it is. Nothing is wrong with that. It's appeal is like comparing Eq2 vs WoW. One focus on graphic and world features..while the other has a wider audience due to less graphic restrictions and...well...its EA-Mythic.
Yeah..sorry I didn't clarify. It's graphics vs. mass appeal like eq2 which is soe vs wow blizz. Everquest had some very steep graphic demands when it was released. On its highest its still pretty sharp. Wow stuck with the simple cartoon templates which alllowed even those people simply curious to be able to try it out with their home PC's and get hooked. It was a pretty remarkable marketing ploy.
In regards to EA-Mythic...I am expressing that EA is a marketing giant and therefore has a lot more resources to reach the casuals, the hardcore, and even the younglings who have yet to discover mmo's. That isn't an overly good thing..but it will sell boxes.
Comments
Thank you for your reply, I think that is a good summary of the interesting issue.
I'm sorry, I was unclear. I meant that the PC/FPS crowd is the market most likely to want the graphical advances and buy the hardware for it. As you say, AoC is not an FPS and that is exactly why I question the strategy. It's a small, highly competitive market to begin with, one that gets more coverage than its size warrants, and the hardcore PC/FPS players I know are no fans of the "dumbed-down" MMORPG genre.
As a RTS/RPG/sim fan, I've found that companies regularly cater to my old hardware. I can't speak to driving and adventure games, but I think of those as console strongholds along with fighters and sports. While I enjoy FPS games too, they clearly put up a sign that says "upgrade all ye who enter here". I could upgrade, but, like most of the family-kids-professional people I know, it's not worth it to me. There's nothing wrong with that, only a comment on who their market is. From all the marketing I have seen, beta flame wars aside, AoC is putting up that same sign.
That's funny, I would have said the opposite - don't let the users on MMORPG.com be your benchmark because we are few and the most likely people to upgrade our hardware to play an MMORPG. I think you are correct about the possibilities of people trying it and finding out what the real deal is, which again makes me wonder if Funcom shot themselves in the foot by putting up a perceived barrier. Assuming a game with this kind of funding and expectations would see slow growth as failure, it comes down to whether the increase in customers who hear "good graphics" outweighs the decrease from "high specs".
Certainly. I think some people here, myself included, are more likely to be frustrated that a solid dev team with good funding chose to gamble on graphics instead of game play changes. Real AI, dynamic world systems, etc...
As I said, I don't think they're pitching to the FPS crowd so much as targeting their appeal at the FPS crowd. XBOX would make a huge difference because the markets are all different there. If their real strategy is XBOX and all this is just a big test of sorts, then they're potentially geniuses. Same old diku formula with better graphics on a console is a risk well worth taking, although it sucks exactly for us old timers who are sick of the formula.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but disagree with the direction. Independent, niche games are most likely to bring creativity and lateral thinking. WoW hurt that by creating the expectation of a huge player base. If AoC succeeds, it will make it even worse by raising the graphics/production bar higher. But whether AoC is helping or hurting the industry is a different discussion.
Someone was going to up the graphics bar, question is whether Funcom jumped the gun.
Y'know, the more I think about it the more I suspect that the real success of Conan will be on the XBox, and that the PC release could almost be considered (by the very cynical) as a kind of extended Open Beta. After all, as you so rightly said AoC is more or less fairly similar to many MMOs that already exist, albeit with a lot more pace under the hood and a beautiful shiny new lick o' paint.
For those of us who've played more than their fair share of the genre already, it is a step along the road (in my opinion an important one, and one I'll thoroughly enjoy). For most console gamers though, who've never been tempted into RPG territory because of the slow gameplay, lack of action and competition and comparatively subpar graphics, Conan will quite possibly stand out as an attractive prospect. Assuming the engine runs smoothly on that platform, it will most certainly stand up against other console titles sporting stunning visuals and action-based gameplay as it does. Think this is where Funcom really will be taking it to the bank.
And who knows, Microsoft might be hoping that it'll help boost sales of their console from would-be PC players thwarted by the high tech requirements. Surely even working dads like you can afford to spring for an XBox now and again...?
Y'know, the more I think about it the more I suspect that the real success of Conan will be on the XBox, and that the PC release could almost be considered (by the very cynical) as a kind of extended Open Beta. After all, as you so rightly said AoC is more or less fairly similar to many MMOs that already exist, albeit with a lot more pace under the hood and a beautiful shiny new lick o' paint.
For those of us who've played more than their fair share of the genre already, it is a step along the road (in my opinion an important one, and one I'll thoroughly enjoy). For most console gamers though, who've never been tempted into RPG territory because of the slow gameplay, lack of action and competition and comparatively subpar graphics, Conan will quite possibly stand out as an attractive prospect. Assuming the engine runs smoothly on that platform, it will most certainly stand up against other console titles sporting stunning visuals and action-based gameplay as it does. Think this is where Funcom really will be taking it to the bank.
And who knows, Microsoft might be hoping that it'll help boost sales of their console from would-be PC players thwarted by the high tech requirements. Surely even working dads like you can afford to spring for an XBox now and again...?
Well said. One of my good WoW buddies "ran the numbers" after we quit and decided to buy a cheap XBox and spend the next year or two getting old games off ebay instead of looking for a new PC game to play. So far he's looked brilliant while I'm here playing forumcraft and waiting for a revolution that's probably 5-10 years off.Cheers!
Yes you do that. The MINORITY of players would agree with you.
The rest play what they think is fun out there. WoW, if anything, has proved that.
blizznet kiddies.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
No, people with very weak computers had severe lag issues in Ironforge. Mine was in the higher end back in the day and I rarely had problems. Sure, it lagged a bit...but nothing that ever effected gameplay, or kept me from going there. (unlike the Jita system in EVE)
But yes, they did issue a patch a week, and there were many issues during those first 6 months...which has been true of any game I've played.... so no big deal. AOC will probably be no different.
if you were on the hyjal server - you lagged - period. IF you could even log on.
but grats on being one of the uber two people who DIDN'T lag those first six months in wow. i still don't think there are any people that didn't lag, just people that "claim" to have not lagged.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Speaking of crap, the above post is full of it.
Loading in AoC is quick if you have a newer pc. But I can see warhammer is going for the lowest common denominator with its cartoony wow graphics. Did they actually hire artists away from Blizzard? Cause it sure as heck looks like it.
i like this argument. it worked GREAT for vanguard. i mean, vanguard is probably still saying that people just need newer computers to experience it's awesomeness. and look at it's subs - isn't vanguard up to like 500 million monthly subs now?
yup, the "your computer sucks too much to play this game" mindset really does work, just look at vanguard.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I have two questions:
1. What is the point of this thread?
2. If you have to point out what you find is wrong with AoC, which plenty of people have, why on earth is it in the Warhammer forum?
Players like different things, different games and different aspects of games. That is why there are so many different games - they appeal to different people. If you don't like a game, great. Someone else does.
Not the place, and not worth reading/writing/arguing about.
WHEN DID CREATIVITY DIE
LOL.love all the bitching
Stop crying cause you have a shitty computer. AOC runs amazingly good on a $400 computer.
And the game is aimed for an adult audiance, so move along .... Lastest patches has made miracles. Zoning takes between 2-5 seconds
on my computer. I can live with that.
Speaking of crap, the above post is full of it.
Loading in AoC is quick if you have a newer pc. But I can see warhammer is going for the lowest common denominator with its cartoony wow graphics. Did they actually hire artists away from Blizzard? Cause it sure as heck looks like it.
what good is AoC graphx if the game play sucks? Shouldnt u be playing beta instead of trolling WAR board?AoC is even more demanding than VSoH. What the hell were they thinking. Anyone in beta right now knows how smooth it runs....like sandpaper.
WAR better not be like that or I'll be pissed.
I'm skipping the entire thread and addressing the OP:
1. & 2. They are powerful enough. I was running it using a single 8800 GT with 512/mb DDR3, and 4 gigs of high speed DDR2 system RAM. I ran a fairly consistent 30 fps without SLi or multi-core support enabled. Oh, right, and the game was running in DEBUG MODE. Beta, anyone heard of it? My load times were almost always brief. Most peoples' problems stemmed from the fact they did not have enough RAM. The game, just sitting there doing nothing, uses close to 2GB in some places. RAM is cheap, if you have an awesome video card and are trying to play newer games with 2gb of system RAM, you need to get real. Just because a pseudo-seamless environment is right for WoW does not mean it is right for other games.
3. Again, you are wrong. There were people running the game with GeForce 6800's. My old computer with an 8x AGP 6800 could probably run AoC with a RAM upgrade. I would recommend shader model 2.0, no AA, no AS, shadows off, and med or low texture quality, but it would run fine. There were a lot of people saying that upgrading their drivers to nVidia's current beta drivers increased performance dramatically as well.
Bottom line, unless you extensively troubleshooted your crappy performance, and made allowances for the fact it was a beta client running in debug mode, you need to place a big part of the blame on yourself. Personally, I had more troubles with server lag, but I understood this was a stress test. Looks like they stressed the servers.
-Sinistrad
I have yet to see any semi-decent computer built in the last 4 years that has been unable to run WOW well... As for the new 8xxxx and 9xxxx graphics cards, they SMOKE the game. They look great at max settings! I have tried both and have had no problems...
Sorry, but if this is your experience, you are doing something wrong.
but it seems like 99% of performance problems have been fixed with the "miracle patch"
but like this guy up here said.
"Players like different things, different games and different aspects of games. That is why there are so many different games - they appeal to different people. If you don't like a game, great. Someone else does.
Not the place, and not worth reading/writing/arguing about."
EQ2 is Sony Online Entertainment (SOE)
WoW is Activision Blizzard/Vivendi
Yeah..sorry I didn't clarify. It's graphics vs. mass appeal like eq2 which is soe vs wow blizz. Everquest had some very steep graphic demands when it was released. On its highest its still pretty sharp. Wow stuck with the simple cartoon templates which alllowed even those people simply curious to be able to try it out with their home PC's and get hooked. It was a pretty remarkable marketing ploy.
In regards to EA-Mythic...I am expressing that EA is a marketing giant and therefore has a lot more resources to reach the casuals, the hardcore, and even the younglings who have yet to discover mmo's. That isn't an overly good thing..but it will sell boxes.