john6370 Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 The thing that pisses me off about this game(and most pc games) is that on the box it states a 350mhz processor with a 16meg vidoe card to play the game....lololololol....Yes it might boot up.....but it will not be very playabel...how do i know? i know this because my brother has a 400mhz p2 with 128 megs ram running and a tnt2 graphic card, and it runs at a wopping 12fps with everything truned off........sorry that is not playabel..why on the box do they have system spec. that will not run the game correctly...they should of put 600mhz memory 128 vidoe card 32 megs ram now on that system it should playable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porl'' Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 my machine runs it great!! ...dont know the framerate, but it doesn't slow down very much...its actually only slowed down on the outside bit on Kejim (?) x-wings, at-st's....etc...but thats understandable! I haven't got to the swamp yet and i hear that slows down, so we'll see... .. ..I just thought that i would say, im running a PIII 500mhz machine with a TNT2 32mb card and 384mb ram....and it runs great!!.. Porl-Patine'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_Snive Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 AMD Athlon XP 1500+ 512 MB DDR SDRAM GeForce 3 ti200 64 MB DDR SDRAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zek Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Snive, um, the point is it doesn't work well on LOW-end machines. Minimum requirements are almost always understatements these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Ah, Lord_Snive takes the opprotunity to brag..... :rolleyess: Hey, works great on mine as well.... Twin p5 3ghz, liquid cooled Xenon chips 3 gig memory 1 gig Geforce 9 card hyper mouse mind meld keyboard interface 360kb floppies Your pathetic attempt to compensate for some other deficiency makes me want to Good day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteChedda Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Originally posted by john6370 The thing that pisses me off about this game(and most pc games) is that on the box it states a 350mhz processor with a 16meg vidoe card to play the game....lololololol....Yes it might boot up.....but it will not be very playabel...how do i know? i know this because my brother has a 400mhz p2 with 128 megs ram running and a tnt2 graphic card, and it runs at a wopping 12fps with everything truned off........sorry that is not playabel..why on the box do they have system spec. that will not run the game correctly...they should of put 600mhz memory 128 vidoe card 32 megs ram now on that system it should playable Hmm, excluding outside areas, and after a quick load, a TNT2 [assuming its not a M64] should be able to handle low quality at 640x480 better than 12 FPS, maybe its time to clean up his system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canis_Aureus Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Touchy today smitty? ... or just trying to compensate for your package? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSaber Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 I play it on a PII 400, TnT2 32 meg, 512 megs RAM and it works pretty good for me. I have it set to 800X600 , 16 bit color, and the texture setting on high. On the outside parts I do have to lower the settings but it still plays well. I don't know how to check the framerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiteche5 Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 to check framerate open the console and type "cg_drawfps 1" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Touchy indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardz Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Ive been (trying) to play on an intel celeron 450mhz 64m megs of RAM. It don't like it at all. I have everything turned off and it is awful, but I can see the potential there. At the minute is looks like a very good mod for MOTS. It is being upgraded soon anyway so it wont be long! wardz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 1. Their minimum system specs mean exactly that. The absolute MINIMUM you need to play the game in the lowest res with EVERY thing turned to off or the lowest detail. You can probably pull 30 FPS in 512x res or lower, low detail. Looks too ****ty for you? Tough, get a new computer! 2. Another reason for very low system specs is to get more sales. If they put the recommended specs as their minimum, they'd have a lot less people buying it. 3. It's not Raven's fault your PC can't run the game. They aren't going to make a game with ****ty ass graphics just for your old crappy PC. The world is moving ahead, and your lagging behind. Your fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegoose Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 the only thing that anoys me is my game crashes to the desktop every 5-10 minutes so i'm only up to the artus mines:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanke4252 Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 well, if your trying to play with near minimum specs on a processor that runs sub-par at best, i dont think youll be happy with how it runs. If you dont know that by now then I dont know what to tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[MF]PheoniX Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 amd Duron 800 Geforce 4 ti 4600 128meg 512 pc2400 ddr ram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsiSilverthorn Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 While I agree that game developers should not design for low end people I do have a problem with this statement: "2. Another reason for very low system specs is to get more sales. If they put the recommended specs as their minimum, they'd have a lot less people buying it." That might very well be why the companies do it but is that a good reason? Basically your saying that the companies want to trick people into believing their computer will play the game just to get them to buy it and that this is ok with you. Personally I think that if the companies know their minimum specs really won't run the game in a playable fashion then they shouldn't list those specs but make it higher. Truth in advertising, etc. Legally they are on good ground but ethically? Not if the reason is that one above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinkyHarper Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Originally posted by Emon 1. Their minimum system specs mean exactly that. The absolute MINIMUM you need to play the game in the lowest res with EVERY thing turned to off or the lowest detail. You can probably pull 30 FPS in 512x res or lower, low detail. Looks too ****ty for you? Tough, get a new computer! 2. Another reason for very low system specs is to get more sales. If they put the recommended specs as their minimum, they'd have a lot less people buying it. 3. It's not Raven's fault your PC can't run the game. They aren't going to make a game with ****ty ass graphics just for your old crappy PC. The world is moving ahead, and your lagging behind. Your fault. "Your computer sucks. Thank you, have a nice day." Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wepeel Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 um I dont know whats wrong with your system... I just installed it on my old computer, which is a piece compared to what you can get nowadays for the money... Celery 366 o/c to 416 256 mb ram 14 gb and 4 gb hard drive(the 4gb is an older one that doesnt support ata33) tnt2 ultra viper 770v 32mb I have the game running under a trial version of win2k, and the game is installed on the faster hd. I can get on average 50-60 fps with all the settings down, and no AA or aniostropic(?) filtering on. Yea it may not look that pretty...BUT I can still tell whats going on and it runs very well, so it can work great as another computer if we ever have a LAN party... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroshi Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Basically your saying that the companies want to trick people into believing their computer will play the game just to get them to buy it and that this is ok with you. Personally I think that if the companies know their minimum specs really won't run the game in a playable fashion then they shouldn't list those specs but make it higher. Truth in advertising, etc. Legally they are on good ground but ethically? Not if the reason is that one above. It's not really up to the companies to decide what's a "playable fashion", though. I played Quake in, what, 320x240 I think it was? Did most people play at that res? I remember seeing options a lot higher than that but I never could use them, but damn, it was fun. I'd say that I still consider that res playable. I've always bought games even if I was the minimum requirement, or lower, because I always knew that someday I'd have a better computer and I'd be able to run it with everything maxed out. But I wanted to be able to play the game then. =) Besides, minimum requirements aren't what are used to trick people into buying bad games (which this game is not, and if you were tricked into buying it, that's a _good_ thing). It's advertising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
power_ed Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Originally posted by Smitty mind meld keyboard interface ROFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsiSilverthorn Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 "It's not really up to the companies to decide what's a "playable fashion", though. I played Quake in, what, 320x240 I think it was? Did most people play at that res? I remember seeing options a lot higher than that but I never could use them, but damn, it was fun. I'd say that I still consider that res playable. I've always bought games even if I was the minimum requirement, or lower, because I always knew that someday I'd have a better computer and I'd be able to run it with everything maxed out. But I wanted to be able to play the game then. =) Besides, minimum requirements aren't what are used to trick people into buying bad games (which this game is not, and if you were tricked into buying it, that's a _good_ thing). It's advertising." Hey it runs GREAT on my system (AMD T-Bird 900mhz Geforce2 GTS) but I see the original posters point and your argument doesn't combat it nor is it a good reply to mine. I would say the type of gameplay the original poster was getting would not be playable to me if I was in his position...Maybe it would be to you but I bet it would not to the majority of consumers. And IF said consumer was tricked into buying a game he thought he could play (afterall his system is at least as good as the minimum requirements and even a little better) only to get home, open the package, install the game and be treated to a slide show, that is just wrong in my opinion. Yes I think as knowledgable consumers of video games we all should know these "minimum specs" are pure fiction but many consumers don't know this. I still hear from my friends when they look at boxes and read the specs that they believe their system will run the game well when I KNOW different. And the consumer so tricked does not have many options because many of the software stores don't accept returns on opened software. So personally I think you ought to be more open minded in the criticism that this guy has. Just because you feel its ok to play at 512x384 or whatever does not mean that the average consumer would want to. And the software companies know what the AVERAGE consumer would consider playable. So again from the grounds of what is right and what SHOULD BE, the proper specs to print would not be what can run the program but what can actually play the game. (At what is probably a decent standard of 640x480 with the minimum options with at least 15-20 fps). If the average consumer was told their system could not play the game with at least this level of playability then they probably would not spend the money until they had a computer system that could play it. But of course the software companies could care less if some guy ends up with a $40 coaster as long as they get their money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiarc Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 I'm running an upper-end budget system (Built by yours truly) and I get mediocre performance. I'm fairly certain the vidcard isn't fully supported. Duron 950 1 GB Ram ( ^_^ ) SB Live 3dfx Voodoo 3 2000 (Upgrading to GeForce 4 soon...) I'm running it at about medium settings, and it runs decently. Once I hit Yavin, though, I had to set those settings rock bottom . Ouch. Also, with the Voodoo, the savegames load VERY slowly. I ended up just quitting and reloading the program every time I died, as it took about 1/5 of the time it took to load a new savegame. I agree that the game didn't look too impressive at those quality settings. I'm looking forward to a new video card so I can fully enjoy it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.