PC Requirements: How far is too far?
Displaying 1-20 of 29 total.
12
next
Omni
|
Just how far can you take your 3D gaming? Honestly, there's nothing wrong with a good 3D game for the PC.
But when it takes up near 7 gigs, over 128 megs of RAM, and needs the absolute bleeding-edge graphics card just to run at standard resolution...that's insane.
As for me, anything that requires more than my GeForce2 and Radeon 9000, will not make me lose any sleep over thoughts of upgrading my PC.
Why in the bloody world would you make a game that's over 7 gigs? Even with textures and music. They need some restraint or something.
Or maybe I'm too old fashioned. Heck, I'm hunting down a dead system that all my friends tell me is useless and my parents tell me isn't worth the money.
But stuff like PC Halo: Now, I've heard the gameplay is absolutely awesome, but why in the world does it take up several gigs of HD space, and it tells my friend that his computer doesn't meet the general requirements? And he's got a brand new Toshiba (PentIV, 256 megs of RAM (or more), GeForce2, I think.)
Gaming like that is almost impractical. Though, I've heard that some ports of PC games lack needed optimization and compression (like in that MGS2 PC thread here). But still...it just seems a little much.
Posted on 2004-08-08 19:44:49
|
vecna
|
7 gigs is an aweful lot of storage, but 128mb of ram is nothing these days. So is 256 mb of ram. Doom3 on ultra-quality wants 512 mb of _video ram_ alone, to say nothing of system ram. I have a gig of RAM on my setup.
I'm pretty amazed that doom3 was only 3 cds. Having beat it yesterday, I can tell you, there's a LOT of content.
Edit: Also, when you play doom3, its incredibly aparent where all that horsepower is going. It looks so stunning, I'm amazed it runs as well as it does.
Posted on 2004-08-08 20:48:42 (last edited on 2004-08-08 20:51:48)
|
zaril
|
haha, 128 mb ram. i wonder how many years ago that was. i have a gig, and it's what i call "ok" amount of ram these days. there's really no real need to get more than that, but some games do cache above 600mb so might as well have a gig.
Posted on 2004-08-09 16:39:08
|
Troupe
|
Uh, wouldn't 768 be a safe amount then? 768 works great for me! I had 256 and I would die if I went back. I think you are just oldschool Omni. There's nothing wrong with that, but where you hunt down old expensive Saturn games, we hunt down the cheapest and newest sexy video cards.
Posted on 2004-08-09 17:35:55
|
Omni
|
...er...yeah. A gig of RAM? I thought that was outrageous when I saw Power Macintoshes that had it three years ago.
Actually, according to My Computer, this laptop has 512mb of RAM, and the desktop 256. Huh.
Posted on 2004-08-10 02:04:32
|
Interference22
|
I have 512mb, although my spare RAM expansion slot is staring longingly at me to double that. Alas, I am broke.
My PC (semi-crappy):
512mb RAM
Radeon 8500 (128mb)
37 and 6 gig HDs
17 inch CRT monitor
MS Optical Explorer Mouse
1.3ghz Duron processor
Highly Irritating Logitech Keyboard
My processor is frankly astounding. It *should* be crap, but it's even able to play FarCry without moaning too much and at a decent detail level too, which according to the minimum spec is highly unlikely.
Posted on 2004-08-11 23:44:44
|
rpgking
|
I really need to get/build myself a more modern computer so that I could play Doom 3 as it was meant to be played. -_-
Posted on 2004-08-12 00:20:31
|
Ness
|
I need to get my computer into a working state so that I can play Doom 3 period. Oh and I need to get Doom 3
Posted on 2004-08-12 01:26:01
|
Troupe
|
Getting Doom 3 is about as complicated as a google search.
Posted on 2004-08-12 02:05:13
|
Zip
|
<Hawkredtail> anyone have Doom3 here?
<zip> no, any reason?
<zip> the shop or edonkey are probably the easiest ways of getting it
<Hawkredtail> how do I get there?
<zip> by bus?
Posted on 2004-08-12 02:12:42
|
Omni
|
Er...Interference? You call that PC crap?
Maybe I'm just out of touch...
Posted on 2004-08-12 02:32:55
|
loretian
|
My computer is an Athlon 3200, w/ 1 gig of ram. The video card is only a Geforce 3 (64 megs I believe), but I can run Doom 3 at 800x600, medium quality, at perfectably acceptable framerates*
Even at 640x480, at low quality, the game still looks far better than any other game I've seen, including the leaked Half Life 2.
* Acceptable framerates keeping in mind that I'm not a framerate snob and it's a single player game.
Posted on 2004-08-12 02:56:59
|
Interference22
|
Quote:Originally posted by Omni
Er...Interference? You call that PC crap?
Maybe I'm just out of touch...
Crap, in respect to the fact a decent PC these days would (apparently) be as follows:
1 gig of RAM
80gig HD (preferrably around 100)
128mb DirectX 9.0 supporting 3D hardware (preferrably ATI)
2ghz processor
Maybe I'm just being pedantic. Vecna's PC makes everyone elses seem woeful: I dunno.
One tip, though: for the love of God, don't buy a flash, multicoloured case: you CANNOT readily get similarly coloured CDROM/DVD/Floppy drives to match and the exterior will hence look like a pile of crap. Get something sophistocated and beige or something funky with a DOOR to cover the drives. I have a bitchin' ATX form-factor case with quick-release sides and top (one correctly-placed shove and you can strip it down in seconds). It doesn't *look* outstanding but there's space inside to store a herd of Yak and a decent sized barbecue. Probably.
Posted on 2004-08-13 23:31:20
|
Brainkill
|
Too far == too expensive, simple as that.
Bear in mind that recommended system requirements for Doom3 might seem ridiculous today, but in 5 years they'll be paltry budget specs.
PC gaming doesn't have to be impractical, so long as you can resist the "upgrade madness". Personally I shun all that crap. I've got a modest setup and I adopt the "next-gen console gap approach". Which means I'll wait a good few years before upgrading, and just get all the stuff from the huge back catalogue which do run well on my PC, choosing to ignore the newest releases.
PC developers push the envelope continuously because they know something faster will come out in 6 months or less. Trying to ALWAYS keep up with the newest PC games is extremely impractical, unless you're very rich or spend everything you earn on nothing but PC gaming.
But there's so many good old bargain games out there to buy that run great on old PCs that no budget gamer should lose any sleep if they have to miss out on Doom3 or Far Cry for a few years until they finally decide to upgrade. Unless they happen to be dying from a terminal illness and have 6 months left to live.
It's just good money sense.
ps. Just to add. I don't agree with the opinion that PC developers should "slow down". They are pioneers. They show the future of PC gaming. I don't think they should be restrained or anything. Yes, they are insane. I say good job!
Posted on 2004-08-14 14:00:56 (last edited on 2004-08-14 14:22:24)
|
vecna
|
Its not really that hard or expensive to keep your pc up with current gaming technology. The trick to do it affordably is simply to not demand the absolute best. For instance, the price difference between an 'ultra' video card and a normal card is frequently $200+, but the speed gain is relatively minimal. On a bang for buck ratio, there's a sweet spot that always exists. For CPUs, my Athon64 3000 was the sweet spot when I bought it: to go to a 64bit 3200+ was like a $100 jump in price. The curve is usually pretty steep, so its pretty easy to figure out where the best spot it.
Semifrequent incremental upgrading in that way can be cheaper and has the advantage of you always being able to stay current than buying a new phatty system every few years. Of course, you have to be willing and able to install computer components, but its really pretty easy.
Posted on 2004-08-14 14:21:49
|
Brainkill
|
Heheh, I get what you're saying, but I'm not even refering to getting a new phatty system every few years. I'm talking about getting a system which is already just mid-range today, and then uprading to another "mid-range" setup in a few years.
But I agree with you that getting "TEH BEST!!" every few years is even less good value for money than semi-frequent upgrading.
Posted on 2004-08-14 14:26:14
|
Troupe
|
Quote:Originally posted by loretian
My computer is an Athlon 3200, w/ 1 gig of ram. The video card is only a Geforce 3 (64 megs I believe), but I can run Doom 3 at 800x600, medium quality, at perfectably acceptable framerates*
* Acceptable framerates keeping in mind that I'm not a framerate snob and it's a single player game.
Even in multiplayer (which is a blast) decent framerates are of no consequence because you can just spam chaingun! Yay!
2.0ghz p4
768 RAM
30GB HD :(
Radeon 9700 Pro
This system allows me to play everything and look as good as I demand with good framerates. I hope HL2 doesn't rock me :\
Posted on 2004-08-15 18:43:16
|
Toen
|
I've got:
Athlon 2400+
GeForce 4 TI4400 128MB
512MB running at 266mhz (damn cpu!)
120GB western digital jiggablaster hard drive
Nothing there is terribly expensive and I can run Doom 3 at a steady 30fps at 800x600 in medium detail. Will probably look into upgrading my video card in the relatively near future.
Posted on 2004-08-16 10:09:45
|
zaril
|
computer to my right
------------------------
3.06GHz
Radeon Atlantis 9600 256MB
1GB 400MHz DDR RAM
160GB forgot-its-name but works fine HDD
computer to my left
------------------------
1.6GHz
GeForce Ti4600 TV IN/OUT 128MB
512MB 233MHz DDR RAM
80GB forgot-its-name but works fine HDD
righty is for games.
lefty is for irc and im.
Posted on 2004-08-16 13:36:21
|
Omni
|
No TV In/out on the gaming PC? You can't jack into your TV and play Verge games like TV consoles!
...not that I can do that yet. But I will, in-between using the computer to actually work and play other PC games. But you don't need a next-gen to play Verge games console-style.
...Yeah, I've been wanting to try that. Forget Doom3! Somebody give me Parallel7 on HDTV with progressive scan!
Posted on 2004-08-16 16:56:04
|
