Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
what the early reviews say
sandgrown
Member Posts: 78
i ve had a look through some of the early reviews online , it makes some interesting reading . most are pretty favourable i must say but nearly all of them say to be certain that you pc its close to the recomended specs ( not the required specs ) if you dont want a frustrating time of it . some go so far as to say this is a fatal flaw in the games design .
http://www.theburialgrounds.com/Articles/Article8.shtml
if funcom has overestimated the power of the average home system .i wonder how many of those 400 thousand player will be there in a months time . i m already hearing rumours that possibly as many as a half of them could cancel thier subs .
my recomendation to anyone who does nt have a system thats somewhere near the recomended specs is to wait for a free trial , see how it runs on your pc first .
if aoc runs on the average system like some posts say then funcom really should put one out asap . put peoples minds to rest . ( even if its a three day trial )
theres a lot of potential customers out there holding off buying because they dont want to waste thier money .
Comments
No doubt many folks will have trouble running the game, and some number of people will cancel their subs, happens in every game.
What might happen is some folks might go out and upgrade their hardware which will slowly increase the number of subs in the coming months. (its what I did)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Better for the gamers if the game overshoots the requirements and thus remains relevant for years to come than undershoots and is obsolete from day 1.
Worse for the company of course, since the subscription numbers will be lower. So?
The fatal flaw in that review is system requirements. MOST people who play games have no idea how to setup their computer to maximize their performance in these games. This is the computer age, FUNCOM shouldn't be penalized for people's ignorance of computers or the fact their trying to play the game with something as powerful as my Ipod.
This is not Vanguard, it doesn't take a supercomputer to run it. People who claim that are ignorant of their computer systems or just inaccurate in that comment.
This is an old beta review...
Was even quoted by the one doing the review on this forum a while back..
Ohh well..
Yes they most certainly should.
I'm not a fanboy of any game however Vanguard runs better on my rig than AoC.
Life of an MMORPG "addict"
For 7 years, proving that if you quote "fuck" you won't get banned.
If only a small percentage play AoC because of system requirements they are defeating the purpose of their existence. I would think that lower system requirements would mean more of a user base..
Yes they most certainly should.
I'm not a fanboy of any game however Vanguard runs better on my rig than AoC.
VG and AOC are different games, my PC is between required and recommended, FC gives you a game, if you cant run it on your system, upgrade or dont play it. In no sense should FC be penalized for it. Most gamers dont know what they are doing with their computers you see it soo often on the posts, a popular one is look i have a 8600 and its not running AOC well at all but 8800 runs it like silk hmm, so i need to pay more money to do that. If you read the specs before you even bought the game you could see and know that your card/pc cannot run the game. Dont assume that you can run a game just because you can play another well. VG and AOC do not compare, different games, different concepts and most importantly different shaders/and graphics.
If the gamers don't have a good experience with AoC, due to technical issues, then they will unsubscribe. When that happens, any company will lose. I guess it's in the nature of the beast, called PC gaming.
I like how the people who are playing it are like, "yea if the user cant run it its not funcoms fault it is just their fault for not knowing how to work their computers lol."
I'm pretty sure most gamers are going to know how to work a PC whoever said, "Even if Funcom loses subs because it needs a major computer to run... So?"
Well, you won't be saying So? when Funcom isn't making enough money from subs to run servers, put out updates and expansions, and ultimately just drop all support for the game.
Also, Funcom is going to be penalized no-matter-what for making it run on computers that need to be upgraded. They're penalizing themselves for making something most mid-range gaming PCs won't be able to run at the moment, which is technically their fault for being inconsiderate towards the class of people who only have low to mid-range PCs. That's a good majority of people, which probably exceeds people with high-range computers by a major amount. And for the person who said you don't want something that will be "dead on day 1"... well, if you have a game that you can't run during your first impression of that game, you're probably not going to sit around and say, "Well, in a couple of months I'll just upgrade my computer and start playing." The beauty of being one of the first to play the game and having more games pushed into the PC gaming market is going to just overshadow AoC until the point where you don't want to play. Maybe 1/5 of the people who couldn't play it will return over time, but that's not many.
When you get sick, should I say it's not the doctor's fault you can't perform surgery on yourself?
We all have different skillsets. I can build a computer with my hands tied behind my back, but that doesn't mean I know squat about, say, raising cattle. But people that raise cattle dont know jack about computers. Doesn't mean they can't want to enjoy/play the game.
Funcom made this game to last a very long time, thus the whole point of the huge video requirements. Now, people will have to upgrade their computers regardless because more and more new games are demanding better computers, Crysis,Witcher. Most players now are between the ages of 10-20 and I hate to stay it, but MOST do not know how to properly work their computers, their parents buy them and they just play with the settings. Your arguement is valid however, without subs Funcom cannot provide the servers. Given the game has taken 4-5 years to create and it has alot of positive feedback I am not too worried about it. It was a good idea for them to make the game requirements high for longer term competition for anything comming out. Its a risk companies will have to start taking unfortunately.
Well here's the issue, some new single player game comes out with amazing graphics and the below average computer can't run it well. They throw the game away.
With MMOs they come on these forums and whine constantly, fix your POS computers. If you have a decent computer and the problem is purely developer side sure then let them have it. People whining because their POS Tandy 1000 can't run AoC on Max settings are idiots.
You want to play a brand new game(that's not cartoony) just like any other new computer game, people should know that their old systems may not be able to handle it.
just my opinion but the bugs combined with the (lack of) customer service will be the main killers of the game. SOme good concepts and all and a fairly fun game but unless FC gets their stuff together fast it is going to pass Vanguard on it's way down to Horizons level populations.
Just for the record my computer runs it fine and the game is gorgeous when it launches and does not crash.
I miss DAoC
There was a very long thread regarding the fact that the game is only utilizing about 30 to 40 percent of the ATI cards power. I will reconsider my cancellation if they get this worked out before my 30 days are up.
That would depend on what your definition of a mid-range computer is, in my opinion my computer is slighty above mid-range. It's nearly 2 years old and the only settings I have to modify are the shadows, turning those off alone gets me 15-20FPS. I have a 7950GT graphics card 512MB. This is far from state of the art.
If people's definition of mid-range is a 5 year old Circuit City bargain basement display model, they really need to realize they're out of touch. If they can't afford to upgrade from this POS then they should be saving their money not playing computer games.
Yes they most certainly should.
I'm not a fanboy of any game however Vanguard runs better on my rig than AoC.
VG and AOC are different games, my PC is between required and recommended, FC gives you a game, if you cant run it on your system, upgrade or dont play it. In no sense should FC be penalized for it. Most gamers dont know what they are doing with their computers you see it soo often on the posts, a popular one is look i have a 8600 and its not running AOC well at all but 8800 runs it like silk hmm, so i need to pay more money to do that. If you read the specs before you even bought the game you could see and know that your card/pc cannot run the game. Dont assume that you can run a game just because you can play another well. VG and AOC do not compare, different games, different concepts and most importantly different shaders/and graphics.
They may be different games but they are not as different as you think. They both use the same device drivers to access your video card(s) and they both use the same API (DirectX). The only real difference is the usage of the API. The shader model employed in VG and AoC are the same (3.0).
That's not really my point though. This is a question of planning and running a business to make the biggest splash in the market.
EQ2 failed at launch due to poor system requirements.
EQ2 has made a respectable comeback.
Vanguard failed at launch due to poor system requirements.
Vanguard's comeback is yet to be seen, however GU5 looks good. (I get 45 FPS where I used to get 25).
AoC .... ?
When will game companies realize that if they're going to release a good selling MMORPG they're going to have to make the system requirements A) truthful and
attainable by the middle class.
Life of an MMORPG "addict"
For 7 years, proving that if you quote "fuck" you won't get banned.
Come on guys! Now you are saying that the game should've NOT taken advantage of the average looking game todate?? LOL!
Age of Conan does nothing new in the form of graphical features. It's just an expansive world that requires a lot of videocard power to make it look like the designer intended. However, the game does have options to turn down those settings for those less fortunate to have money to upgraded. I, personally, spent another $500 to get my game to run relatively smooth (it still hiccups in cities). More RAM, new OS, new HD, and new Videocard. Before this upgrade, I hadn't bought anything for my computer for 3 years, so it was due anyway..
Funcom made this game to last a very long time, thus the whole point of the huge video requirements. Now, people will have to upgrade their computers regardless because more and more new games are demanding better computers, Crysis,Witcher. Most players now are between the ages of 10-20 and I hate to stay it, but MOST do not know how to properly work their computers, their parents buy them and they just play with the settings. Your arguement is valid however, without subs Funcom cannot provide the servers. Given the game has taken 4-5 years to create and it has alot of positive feedback I am not too worried about it. It was a good idea for them to make the game requirements high for longer term competition for anything comming out. Its a risk companies will have to start taking unfortunately.
But it's not going to be around for a long time if joe/jane average cant run it and doesnt want to spend a grand or so buying a new comp. He/she will run back to the cozy confines of an older mmo that isn't a system hog and give them money instead.
edit: My wife plays some games but her old system is ancient. She never even considered upgrading before meeting me even though she played games. She just played stuff that could work. Extra money was for necessities not new stuff to run game X. I think this is more prevalent then we think, especially now with this so called recession.
The last patch increased my frames by about 10 fps to where the game is enjoyable. I doubt I'll be able to do siege pvp with my comp, but i can enjoy the content much more now. Field of the dead and noble district were vastly improved to me, so I'm thankful for that.
I was skeptical at first and harsh on the game, but seems like they are working hard to fix the most glaring bugs and I think they'll continue to work on optimization.
I'm under the reccomended specs by about 25%, I ran into a decent number of bugs, and initially it ran kind of bad.
However, I'm not retarded and looking for someone to blame, so I sat down and said "What all can I do to make this game run, and make it run well". After maybe 2 hours of playing around, re-patching some things, messing with my drivers, cleaning some stuff up, and messing with in game settings, I now run at an almost constant 60+ fps on medium/high settings for **everything**.
The reason I can do this is years of experience beta testing, and forcing games to work on my PC, and in my experience with other gamers, if you can't make a game work on a technically relevant PC, it's because you don't know what the f%^& you're doing. Stop blaming funcom for things that you could otherwise fix, or attempt to learn how to fix. Solutions are out there, most people just drop a game if it doesn't work with their pc fresh from box and first patch, that's user stupidity, and nothing else.
So is everyone who wants to play this required to upgrade?Thats not a way for Funcom to stay in existence. I know where you are coming from, but even I who games quite a bit cant afford to plunk down oodlesof cash just to run a game. I upgrade once every year and a half. I only have one wife, one dog and one 12 yr old. They are not cheap upkeep. Throw in a house, two cars, school, medical and those wonderful things called bills and our bank account gets drained faster than wecan replenish it. And we make better than decent money...
I'm running a intel 8400 3.0ghz with 2gigs ram,vista,8500gt--it's good for every other game I play. It's about average and I would guess that it's on par with the majority of the population. It'spassable on low settings in AoC,but Med-High in LOTRO.. 3-35 fps avg (depending on loc in AoC ) LOTRO is 25-50+ fps depending on loc. These are the two mmo's I play so i'm not to knowledgeable on fps in others.
AoC doesnt require a super computer, any decent computer will run it but some people have 5 year old computers, im sorry but you should know better than to buy a next gen game for your PC.
The thing is Funcom thought of it in the long run, people constantly update their PCs and now you could buy a fairly cheap computer that would run AoC with no problem, mabye not with everything maxed out but it will still run it fine.
I know my friends have decent computers and their game play is fine. I for one am glad that theres an mmo out there with pretty decent graphics, not because my computer can handle it but because it looks good, and is fun.
A man dies daily, only to be reborn in the morning, bigger, better and wiser.
-Playing AoC
-Playing WoW
-Retired- SWG
-Retired- EVE
-Retired- LotR
Computer (- Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.81 Ghz (Quad Core CPU)- Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 - 4 Gigs of PC 8500 ram (1066)- EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS PCI Express 2.0 - WD 500GB 7500RPM - Zalman CPU cooler (air cooled)
- 24" Widescreen 1080P HD display).
I'm running a 2.7 processor, 2 gigs DDR ram, mid range Nvidia card, winXP, and I get 60+ fps on medium/high settings, so you're doing something wrong, or you have a system specific problem, or it's vista (I blame vista), or something else that has nothing to do with the game.
I think it's vista too but i've tried to downgrade down to my old XP pro and it's very unstable. Tp unstable to enjoy.The unfortunate thing is most, but not all people who upgrade or buy a new system get vista foisted on them. I didn't want it but couldn't pass up the great deal I got on my system. I works for everything else that i'm throwing at it ,even some of my oldies.
This thread is by the way a good example for why I think that gaming will shift more and more towards consoles. No hassle with upgrading your system just to be able to play a game. And you can even use them as blu-ray device for your home cinema or whatever.
Got me thinking when I saw that 'SW - The Force Unleashed' would not even be released for PC...