At 320 x 240 though? I really don't remember it being like that at all.
Whats the most Hardware demanding game to date?
- Thread starter spellcaster
- Start date
At 320 x 240 though? I really don't remember it being like that at all.
Supreme Commander on huge maps would be a good contender for all-round hardware usageEQ2 really wasn't that demanding, at least i don't remember it as being, when i played it?
I would have thought he wanted something to look amazing to see his new graphics card in action, ruling Supcom out... if he just wanted to stress test his system he could run some arbitrary maths benchmark.
Age of Conan requires definitely more than crysis.
In pvp battle with lets say 15 on each side ( 15v15) it can easly drop Q6600 @ 3.6ghz and 9800GX2 OCed to -10fps and completely freeze the screen
. And that's in only 1680x1050.
Now imagine battlekeep siege with 48vs48, probably will need 4870x2 to even move it.
And whoever says it doesnt look good, obviously have not seen higher level zones and other effects live. I can surely say it doesnt look any worse than crysis. But on the other hand you can not really compare them since it is totally different type of game.
In pvp battle with lets say 15 on each side ( 15v15) it can easly drop Q6600 @ 3.6ghz and 9800GX2 OCed to -10fps and completely freeze the screen
. And that's in only 1680x1050.Now imagine battlekeep siege with 48vs48, probably will need 4870x2 to even move it.
And whoever says it doesnt look good, obviously have not seen higher level zones and other effects live. I can surely say it doesnt look any worse than crysis. But on the other hand you can not really compare them since it is totally different type of game.
Well you can compare them on graphics, Crysis looks better. Again, i'm sure the OP was more looking at awesome looking games that can show his graphics card off... not stress testing, if he wants to stress test he could download some random math benchmark suite.
You can't compare MMORPG to FPS ...
Why ?
MMORPG is a lot more complicated and there are thousands of ppl playing it at the same time , not just 1 or 8-16 in multiplayer.
It is totally different type of game.
Did you ever seen reviews like " Command & Conquer has terrible graphics after all because CoD4 looks better ".
Now try to compare it this way, crysis in comparison to CoD4 and other similar titles doesnt look that much better, they're on fairly same level.
Now compare Age of Conan to other mmorpgs ? totally different legaue, no competition at all.
-----------
And even after all of that I wouldnt say it looks better, tell me, did you play high level content on all maxed out ? And keep in mind that's not even DX10 enabled yet...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,519
- Location
- Surrey
Yes it does.
You're really misunderstanding the point of this thread... he just wants to show off his new graphics card via something very pretty, not which engine is the most visually impressive for it's particular genre, as with that reasoning we should be recommending him 2d platformers / card games etc.
Are you telling me Age of Conan looks like this?
You obviously did miss your reading lesson, or at least the understanding part.
Following your theory all the games in the world have bad graphics because they don't look like this screenshot which to be honest isnt that good, area 5 feet further is blurred, pretty much every thing that should be round is not round enough, the doors are square'ish, flame looks bad, and I could keep on going but thats not the point...
Im not saying crysis looks bad but it's not ONLY good looking game out there.
There are many more titles that look great.
I know, wasnt my point either but oh well, let's just leave this topic tbh.Personlly I felt that COD4 brought you in, like a good movie should, this did that for me.
Visually it delivered superbly. It never jumped up and shouted how good it was going to be, it just came out quietly and the brilliance of the game sold itslef.
Crysis sure might have looked better, but not THAT much better, and judging by all the ranting and raving they halrded on about with it, I really expected so much more, and sadly it never happened... Not for me.
So, on the basis of those thoughts, I myself would have thought that COD4 was coded better than Crysis any day, plus of course the hardware required for COD 4 is nowhere near that of Crysis either.
Visually it delivered superbly. It never jumped up and shouted how good it was going to be, it just came out quietly and the brilliance of the game sold itslef.
Crysis sure might have looked better, but not THAT much better, and judging by all the ranting and raving they halrded on about with it, I really expected so much more, and sadly it never happened... Not for me.
So, on the basis of those thoughts, I myself would have thought that COD4 was coded better than Crysis any day, plus of course the hardware required for COD 4 is nowhere near that of Crysis either.
quake....the first one
i didnt even have a pentium cpu back then (poor poor me) it was a cyrix.
did anybody else try running that game with that type of cpu ?
i remember a good while later i got my first pentium 200...wow that was so much better in 3d games.
My first true dive into 3D was my Cyrix 333 in an M590 Mobo and it had onboard SIS6326 8MB GFX ( Funny how you remember these things )
Sure, I played Quake 1 and Doom before, but I got into UT and I knew I had to get a true 3D Card - I got an Orchid Righteous and I still have it to this day.
But at *** time InSanCen, had a Maxi-Gamer 3D ( Another Voodoo 1 ) and a P200 MMX and his Machine rocked.
Its funny, but back then we tweaked and tweaked our poor systems and got the game running fairly smoothly and even on todays PCs which are hundreds of times faster, we still cannot quite get UT right.
I thi kmy most perfect system for playing UT was my Slot A Athlon 750 and voodoo 5000 @ 1024x768 - that was just perfect.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 1,249
Lmao @ this thread. The first reply had him covered, anyone trying to argue otherwise the jokes on you
Lmao @ this thread. The first reply had him covered, anyone trying to argue otherwise the jokes on you
I thought we'd changed the requirements to most demanding at it's time of release?
To be fair, there has been a number of games in the past that have done some amazing things when they perhaps should not have been able to, and in the same breath, there are a number of games that do a bad job at what they do too!
