There is no such thing as a generic "old PC", but only specific computers. My computer is nearly five years old, but will still run just about anything pretty well. Post your specs if you want some idea of what will run well on your particular computer.
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
I'm still running an old Intel Quad 2 Core Q9400 @ 2.66
4GB ram
GeForce GTX 550 Ti
I swear every 6 months I'm going to get a new rig but this one is still ticking away so wtf game on.
I was hoping Wildstar was a little more optimized but it's probably not ready for play yet anyways until the megaservers and a couple months more tweaking.
Glad to hear ESO runs well. SWTOR looks pretty good on my machine actually.
AA taunts me to give it a try this week even though I avoid playing games at launch.
I only played ESO in Beta and it ran on low settings. There were latency issues but I was seeing complaints from people with i7's on that so it wasn't my old putner.
This brings up an old gripe I have had with MMO's. Back when they were 'new' I could quad client EVE on a 1.8 celeron and a gig of Ram. Now I'm sitting on dual core, 2.8 and 4 Gigs and I can barely run 2 clients without heating issues. Progress?
I'm still running an old Intel Quad 2 Core Q9400 @ 2.66
4GB ram
GeForce GTX 550 Ti
I swear every 6 months I'm going to get a new rig but this one is still ticking away so wtf game on.
I was hoping Wildstar was a little more optimized but it's probably not ready for play yet anyways until the megaservers and a couple months more tweaking.
Glad to hear ESO runs well. SWTOR looks pretty good on my machine actually.
AA taunts me to give it a try this week even though I avoid playing games at launch.
Still looks like a decent rig from my point of view. You may not play on high settings on too many games but you should be able to get away with it on medium or mid-high on whatever is on the market now as long as you stay within 1600x900 or 1920x1080 resolutions. You still have a wide variety to choose from so take your pick.
My old rig Q6600 Quadcore (very old cpu), 4GB RAM and Geforce 8800GTX(rather old DirectX 10.1 card) and i can run all three with that rig, with low settings.. and Landmark in comparsion is unplayable for that rig.
So pick what you like best.. performance should not be the problem for all three.
Originally posted by Kyleran AA is pretty easy on the computer specs.
I was surprised by this when I briefly messed around during the beta. The game seems to run better on my aging machine than ESO does.
I never tried Wildstar, but given the amount of performance complaints I keep hearing, my guess would be it'd get the number 3 spot.
So... AA, ESO and then Wildstar.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal ... Wild which was nearly unplayable.
I think he was asking about the performance of the game.. not weather it was any good heheh
Sorry i couldn't resist.. But to be honest.. out of me and my 7 friends that bought the game.. 0 of use are still playing
On topic i would agree with your order of how well they run on older hardware..
(you might also try SWTOR it runs pretty well on older hardware... even on my MS surface pro 1 i can get 40-60 FPS on fleet with everything turned down)
Comments
"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
I would rank them ESO-ArcheAge-Wildstar
Wildstar is a unoptimized steaming pile of flaming dog &^^%$....... Just wanted to throw that out there
Aloha Mr Hand !
I played all 3 (Wildstar and ESO briefly in Beta, Archeage a little more extensively in Betas'). for my PC it went: ESO, Wildstar, AA.
My PC seemed to lag quite a bit in AA.
Windows 7 Proff.
12GB RAM
Gigabyte X58A UD3R (intel i7-980x)
I'm still running an old Intel Quad 2 Core Q9400 @ 2.66
4GB ram
GeForce GTX 550 Ti
I swear every 6 months I'm going to get a new rig but this one is still ticking away so wtf game on.
I was hoping Wildstar was a little more optimized but it's probably not ready for play yet anyways until the megaservers and a couple months more tweaking.
Glad to hear ESO runs well. SWTOR looks pretty good on my machine actually.
AA taunts me to give it a try this week even though I avoid playing games at launch.
Pentium D 2.8 with 4GB forced
I only played ESO in Beta and it ran on low settings. There were latency issues but I was seeing complaints from people with i7's on that so it wasn't my old putner.
This brings up an old gripe I have had with MMO's. Back when they were 'new' I could quad client EVE on a 1.8 celeron and a gig of Ram. Now I'm sitting on dual core, 2.8 and 4 Gigs and I can barely run 2 clients without heating issues. Progress?
Still looks like a decent rig from my point of view. You may not play on high settings on too many games but you should be able to get away with it on medium or mid-high on whatever is on the market now as long as you stay within 1600x900 or 1920x1080 resolutions. You still have a wide variety to choose from so take your pick.
Actually all three run on rather old pc.
My old rig Q6600 Quadcore (very old cpu), 4GB RAM and Geforce 8800GTX(rather old DirectX 10.1 card) and i can run all three with that rig, with low settings.. and Landmark in comparsion is unplayable for that rig.
So pick what you like best.. performance should not be the problem for all three.
I was surprised by this when I briefly messed around during the beta. The game seems to run better on my aging machine than ESO does.
I never tried Wildstar, but given the amount of performance complaints I keep hearing, my guess would be it'd get the number 3 spot.
So... AA, ESO and then Wildstar.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
I think he was asking about the performance of the game.. not weather it was any good heheh
Sorry i couldn't resist.. But to be honest.. out of me and my 7 friends that bought the game.. 0 of use are still playing
On topic i would agree with your order of how well they run on older hardware..
(you might also try SWTOR it runs pretty well on older hardware... even on my MS surface pro 1 i can get 40-60 FPS on fleet with everything turned down)
I´d say the one with the least amount of active/action combat.
Nothing like laying in to a opponent only to have him in fact be next to you eating your ear
So AA perhaps... It is also a older game so it might do better spec wise.
This have been a good conversation
If you want mass PvP in ESO or Raids in Wildstar...that's a no-go I'd say. Haven't reached anything end-game-y in ArcheAge tho.
In terms of simple straight-up optimization, I'd say: ESO -> ArcheAge -> Wildstar
But only because the graphic quality in ESO feels higher than ArcheAge while they are both light on system resources.