Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Brewmaster insmek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Walton Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by sacrypheyes View Post
    wow can run on about any machine because its engine was already quite outdated to begin with even at release, not because they optimized it (quite the opposite actually).
    Poorly optimized or not, WoW's engine does what many fail to do: Run well on low-end hardware without looking entirely like dog doo. RIFT's "low quality render" looked worse than WoW on low without running nearly as well. I'm hoping that Guild Wars 2 will allow for playability on lower-end hardware on low settings without looking utterly like garbage--playability is the number one concern, however.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by lazymangaka View Post
    Poorly optimized or not, WoW's engine does what many fail to do: Run well on low-end hardware without looking entirely like dog doo. RIFT's "low quality render" looked worse than WoW on low without running nearly as well. I'm hoping that Guild Wars 2 will allow for playability on lower-end hardware on low settings without looking utterly like garbage--playability is the number one concern, however.
    WoW has and always will look like dog doo and worse to me and i played it from a few weeks after release in 2004. i went from Far Cry to WoW, that was such a disappointment. any everyone who says WoW uses stylized aestetics that stand the test of time are the people to blame for encouraging that BS in the first place. can't try and shine doo doo and then try and pass it off as art.
    Cherish the quiet...before my STORM!!!

    Guild Wars 2: Odeezee (Necromancer) || TERA: Odeezee (Archer-Ret) || SWTOR: Odeezee (Sith Inquisitor-Ret/Jedi Sage-Ret) || GW: Odeezee Fosho (Elementalist-Ret)
    Aion: Odeezee (Sorcerer-Ret), ODZ (Spirit Master-Ret) || War
    : Odeezee (Sorcerer-Ret) || AoC: Odeezee (Demonologist-Ret) || WoW: Odeezee (Druid-Ret), Thaone (Mage-Ret)

  3. #23
    Brewmaster insmek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Walton Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Odeezee View Post
    WoW has and always will look like dog doo and worse to me and i played it from a few weeks after release in 2004. i went from Far Cry to WoW, that was such a disappointment. any everyone who says WoW uses stylized aestetics that stand the test of time are the people to blame for encouraging that BS in the first place. can't try and shine doo doo and then try and pass it off as art.
    We could argue about art style all night, but technically speaking it works. WoW has been playable on quad core desktops and single-core Atom netbooks for me, and just about everything in between. GW2 doesn't need to have quite that range of playability, of course, but being workable with somewhere around a reasonable 2006-2007 setup would include most everyone who might want to give it a go.

  4. #24
    GW2 won't have minimun specs close to WoWs obviously, but you can expect it to run on what's considered low end machines now.


    Low end now, been a 1.8-2Ghz dual core, intel hd graphics (like those packaged with the i3)/hd4250/nvidia equivalent, 2GB RAM.

    The above can handle GW1 30fps+ on max settings.


    Also remember Gamescon machines ran with a quad i5, gtx 460 and 4GB on Win7. Although we've no idea what settings it was played at, and if that 460 was SLi or not.

  5. #25
    while i could agree if the IGP was more like nvidia 8400 chipset or AMD 780G, for now everything that only includes intel GMA is lower than low-end really...

    edit : all of those still are way behind any 30-50 bucks GPU though...
    Last edited by sacrypheyes; 2011-12-07 at 12:24 AM.

  6. #26
    Brewmaster insmek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Walton Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyre Fierceshot View Post
    GW2 won't have minimun specs close to WoWs obviously, but you can expect it to run on what's considered low end machines now.


    Low end now, been a 1.8-2Ghz dual core, intel hd graphics (like those packaged with the i3)/hd4250/nvidia equivalent, 2GB RAM.

    The above can handle GW1 30fps+ on max settings.


    Also remember Gamescon machines ran with a quad i5, gtx 460 and 4GB on Win7. Although we've no idea what settings it was played at, and if that 460 was SLi or not.
    That sounds pretty promising. Right now I've been using an AMD Llano laptop, and if a low-end solution like the HD4250 can produce playable framerates then my rig shouldn't have any problem at all. In fact, a lot of computers shouldn't have any problems, which bodes well for GW2 overall.

  7. #27
    Depends on what kind of resolutions you're playing at and what you consider to be acceptable FPS. But anything is speculation at this point until Arenanet lists minimum specs.

  8. #28
    I am surprised how many gamers have so bad computers and they wish for a game to have low graphics in order to play them on "amiga"...I am not rich at all, but gaming is my hobby and with 100-150 euro you can get a very very good graphic card atm...its like they force you to play football with a baloon because there are people who want to play without wear any shoes...

    because some people have bought a pc with 200 euro 10 years ago and they want to play GW2 and Star wars and I don't know what else.. pf..
    and no they are not poor people, if they were poor they wouldn't playing MMO's
    The trick of selling a PvP-MMO is creating the illusion among gankers that they are respectable fighters while protecting them from respectable fights, as their less skilled half would be massacred and quit instead of “HTFU” as they claim.

  9. #29
    I want it to look incredible. I don't have a high end machine so my new games look like they came from 2004.

  10. #30
    well this comp can play GW1 with mostly high settings some medium.. at around 25+ FPS

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by papajohn4 View Post
    and no they are not poor people, if they were poor they wouldn't playing MMO's
    Poor people usually have poor computers, what AAA games play best on poor computers? MMOs, due to their low system requirements.
    Obviously people are not asking crytek to lower the graphics on crysis so they can play on their computers, but if GW2 isn't playable with a dualcore cpu and a dedicated graphics card then they are making a huge mistake by alienating a lot of their potential playerbase. (considering WoW runs just fine on a pentium 4)

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninji View Post
    ... (considering WoW runs just fine on a pentium 4)
    people should stop comparing WoW's accessibility to GW2's. WoW looks like sh!t, it did back when it released and it still does now. using that as a barometer in this day and age is just wrong. yes be as accessible as possible but not to the point where the games quality is compromised. ever notice how a video can look like sh!t at 240p, but if you get the same version of that video at 1080p it looks mind-blowingly amazing? yeah, if you want GW2 to look beautiful don't expect to see that on a low end machine as you will just be doing yourself a disservice.
    Cherish the quiet...before my STORM!!!

    Guild Wars 2: Odeezee (Necromancer) || TERA: Odeezee (Archer-Ret) || SWTOR: Odeezee (Sith Inquisitor-Ret/Jedi Sage-Ret) || GW: Odeezee Fosho (Elementalist-Ret)
    Aion: Odeezee (Sorcerer-Ret), ODZ (Spirit Master-Ret) || War
    : Odeezee (Sorcerer-Ret) || AoC: Odeezee (Demonologist-Ret) || WoW: Odeezee (Druid-Ret), Thaone (Mage-Ret)

  13. #33
    Brewmaster insmek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Walton Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Odeezee View Post
    people should stop comparing WoW's accessibility to GW2's. WoW looks like sh!t, it did back when it released and it still does now. using that as a barometer in this day and age is just wrong. yes be as accessible as possible but not to the point where the games quality is compromised. ever notice how a video can look like sh!t at 240p, but if you get the same version of that video at 1080p it looks mind-blowingly amazing? yeah, if you want GW2 to look beautiful don't expect to see that on a low end machine as you will just be doing yourself a disservice.
    It's not the look of the graphics that matters, it's how it runs. But for what it's worth, making it so the game still looks halfway decent at low settings would be a great thing. To use the same example I made in an earlier post, Rift looks great with the settings cranked but once those sliders start heading south the graphical fidelity drops off hugely. WoW, on the other hand, doesn't look nearly as bad at the lowest settings (it also doesn't look as great at the highest settings). There's a sweet spot somewhere in there that I hope GW2 can hit.

  14. #34
    I am Murloc! Mif's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tarnished Coast
    Posts
    5,629
    Quote Originally Posted by lazymangaka View Post
    It's not the look of the graphics that matters, it's how it runs. But for what it's worth, making it so the game still looks halfway decent at low settings would be a great thing. To use the same example I made in an earlier post, Rift looks great with the settings cranked but once those sliders start heading south the graphical fidelity drops off hugely. WoW, on the other hand, doesn't look nearly as bad at the lowest settings (it also doesn't look as great at the highest settings). There's a sweet spot somewhere in there that I hope GW2 can hit.
    I believe GW2 can pull off because it's graphics are based on great art, not great numbers of polygons and shaders.

    Here's a quote from lead art director Daniel Dociu
    Tamat : However, it’s been stated publically that the polygon counts and texture allowances have been increased for the next Guild Wars project. Can you talk about that at all?

    Daniel : I have a strong opinion on this topic so without confirming or denying anything, I truly don't believe its poly count that makes or breaks the visuals of a game. I think it's a rather irrelevant measure of game's artistic quality. Poly count is something that engineers can brag about or take pride in and, while it does help us artists, it's not the defining ingredient of good art. I feel very strongly about this and feel that there are games that were made ten to twelve years ago on inferior platforms or machines that still hold up well and have passed the test of time despite their downright pathetic technical capabilities. Then there are games that are being developed currently or have been shipped recently which can handle all the polygons you can throw at them, yet the art is nothing to write home about visually.

    Tamat : In your opinion what are a few of those games that have withstood the test of time?

    Daniel : Oh jeez. Really early on I remember being blown away by Chrono Trigger and the early day Final Fantasy games. Then I think the first real eye opener for me was the first Metal Gear. It proved to me that one can take pride in one's craftsmanship as an artist, even on a technically inferior platform and that it’s attention to detail and craftsmanship that makes the difference and compensates for the shortcomings of the system. I felt that particular game was developed with a lot of pride, that every single pixel in that game had been hand-placed, and it showed. It was the Asian or Japanese mindset of pride, craftsmanship and passion for your craft that truly impressed me and changed my perspective on how to approach development.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •