Koki on 26/8/2009 at 12:59
Gosh EvaUnit02 will you ragequit like dethtoll did?
DaBeast on 26/8/2009 at 13:57
I honestly thought you were being sarcastic and that scots didn't get it.
Quote Posted by Evabot
See, you can do it with most games, still doesn't mean you actually have any legs to stand on in debate.
That bit sort of suggests it to me.
Anyway, was Crysis the greatest game ever? No
Was it's story the most compelling ever? No.
Did it kick ass? Verily
I've seen it alot over many forums and many in game chat things. The vast majority of people who call Cryis etc "tech demos" are people who have either never played the game and are just repeating what others have said, or can't get it to run stable and therefore moan.
EvaUnit02 on 26/8/2009 at 15:26
Quote Posted by DaBeast
I honestly thought you were being sarcastic and that scots didn't get it.
That bit sort of suggests it to me.
You were right the first time. I don't see why you would think differently now, I've done nothing since but reinforce the original point.
DaBeast on 26/8/2009 at 16:07
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
You were right the first time. I don't see why you would think differently now, I've done nothing since but reinforce the original point.
It was the several responses missing the point of your thread :(
lost_soul on 26/8/2009 at 17:55
I really loved Doom 3. Invisible War was more of a tech demo IMO.
swaaye on 26/8/2009 at 20:09
Let's think back to some previous big action game releases. I'm sure that most of them were proclaimed to be "tech demo" soul-less games by various wonderful folks. However, they were all praised for their prettiness and generally loved by the reviewers. And they certainly influenced the industry and created the wonderful future we live in today (oh how much more exciting the future was before we got here.)
* Doom. 386s ran it like shit so you really needed a 486 and well let's just say that they weren't crazy cheap in 1993. Probably at least $1500 for such hardware. I remember paying $2800 for a DX2/50 that year.
* Wing Commander III - High end 486 and local bus needed to get the premier SVGA mode speeding along adequately. The SVGA action games era wiped the floor with lots of machines of the time due to many ISA-only 486s, hardware was very pricey.
* Quake. You weren't gonna be playing this seriously with a 486 so you needed a Pentium. I'm pretty damn sure that a Pentium processor was never cheap and the alternatives were gimpy garbage for this game. And how bout some GLQuake with a ~$250 Voodoo1 too.
* Quake2. Software mode is horribly ugly so you really need a now ~$200 Voodoo1 and that $400+ Pentium II to run it like greased lightning. ~$300 Voodoo2 coming soon. Yeah you could go with AMD K6-2 but they didn't compare well to a P2 for 3D gaming (to say the least).
* Unreal. The Crysis of 1998. PII 300 & Voodoo 1 cranked along at like 15 fps at 640x480. You needed at least 64MB of expensive RAM or time for some serious swapping.
* Quake3. Punisher of Voodoo2, Voodoo1 nearly useless, Voodoo3 or TNT2 needed for fluidity. You also want a Pentium 3 or Athlon.
* Morrowind. This game didn't run really well until years later and after lots of patches. Horribly inefficient rendering and bugs.
* Unreal2/UT2003. Pounded the Radeon 8500/GF3 into the ground. Athlon XPs & P4s chugging along pitifully.
* Doom3. GeForce FX's nemesis. Radeon 9700 sputtering along adequately. Athlon 64s and top-end P4/AXPs preferred.
So yeah every step of the way resulted in previous pride-and-joy hardware being rendered rather valueless and pitiful. :) People don't respond well to their "investments" becoming laughable, especially the noobs who are new to the upgrade game. The internet wasn't as annoying back then though so the whining was less apparent IMO.
a flower in hell on 26/8/2009 at 21:21
are you talking about "run the game" or are you talking about "run the game with all the bells and whistles and the graphics cranked up to max?"
because I've run quake 1 and 2 on an IBM Thinkpad with a mobile Pentium 90MHz processor, 48mb of ram.
Also have run Descent 1 on a 386 with 8mb of ram.
All were playable. Not the prettiest I've seen the games, but playable.
june gloom on 26/8/2009 at 21:25
swaaye, do you mean just running the game, or running the game with max graphics? If it's the latter, then everything you say is correct (though with certain games like Quake 1 it's moot because there's nothing to max). If you think that these games were incapable of running well at all, you're dead wrong.
Quote:
Doom. 386s ran it like shit so you really needed a 486 and well let's just say that they weren't crazy cheap in 1993. Probably at least $1500 for such hardware. I remember paying $2800 for a DX2/50 that year.
386s were on their way out by the end of 1993 anyway.
Quote:
Quake. You weren't gonna be playing this seriously with a 486 so you needed a Pentium. I'm pretty damn sure that a Pentium processor was never cheap and the alternatives were gimpy garbage for this game. And how bout some GLQuake with a ~$250 Voodoo1 too.
I ran Quake 1 just fine on a 486. Granted, I didn't have sound, but it ran perfectly.
Quote:
Unreal. The Crysis of 1998. PII 300 & Voodoo 1 cranked along at like 15 fps at 640x480. You needed at least 64MB of expensive RAM or time for some serious swapping.
What the fuck, hahahahahahaha. I ran Unreal (and Deus Ex for that matter) just fine on ONBOARD VIDEO.
Quote:
Quake3. Punisher of Voodoo2, Voodoo1 nearly useless, Voodoo3 or TNT2 needed for fluidity. You also want a Pentium 3 or Athlon.
Ran Return to Castle Wolfenstein, which utilized the Quake 3 engine, flawlessly on a Pentium 3 with onboard video. It took forever to load, but hey!
Quote:
Morrowind. This game didn't run really well until years later and after lots of patches. Horribly inefficient rendering and bugs.
To be fair, how much of that is Bethesda's fault and how much of that is the game being "ahead of its time" technology wise?
Quote:
Unreal2/UT2003. Pounded the Radeon 8500/GF3 into the ground. Athlon XPs & P4s chugging along pitifully.
Depending on how old/flashy they were, Unreal Engine 2 games ran okay on a Geforce FX 5500. Unreal Tournament 2004 ran like a charm at close to max details. Running a Pentium 4 2ghz at the time, as well.
Quote:
Doom3. GeForce FX's nemesis. Radeon 9700 sputtering along adequately. Athlon 64s and top-end P4/AXPs preferred.
Only because the FX cards were a pile of shit, and I still managed to run the game at a decent clip with medium settings, a Geforce FX 5200 w/ 256mb RAM, and Pentium 4. It helps that the engine is super-efficient.
Your system averages are about two years behind.
Scots Taffer on 26/8/2009 at 23:13
Quote Posted by DaBeast
I honestly thought you were being sarcastic and that scots didn't get it.
It's cute that you're wondering around with such a hard-on for me, but really whether Eva was being sarcastic or not is besides the point - it's quite easy to demonstrate that certain games (to mass audiences) have merits beyond the graphical and some do not, those that don't can sometimes be labelled "tech demos" and I personally don't have too much of a problem with it.
