Server Help :: View topic - Good Enough GFX?

Server Help

Trash Talk - Good Enough GFX?

Anonymous - Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:54 am
Post subject: Good Enough GFX?

I was running some test on www.nzone.com, for Fable, and it said my GFX card was not good enough to play it. It recomended me:
GeForce FX+ / Radeon 9800+

Here are the requirements for the game I needed:
Video RAM: Required - 128 MB
Video Card 3D Acceleration: Required
Video HW Transform & Lighting: Required
Vertex Shader Ver.: Required
Pixel Shader Ver.: Required

I was looking around for the graphic card It asked for and found this:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4087778

Is this what I need to meet the requirements listed above? And what would be your feedback for this grapic card, and would you have anyother suggestions for something much better in the same price range?

Thanks

Cyan~Fire - Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:01 pm
Post subject:

Ew just don't play a game that requires 128MB of video RAM. All games should have a low-detail option.

Cerium - Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:37 pm
Post subject:

I dare you to repeat that statement in about 3 years.

Anonymous - Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:40 pm
Post subject:

well is this the GFX that meets the requirements?

SpecShip - Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:51 pm
Post subject:

That statement has already been invalidated.
In the coming 3 years, we will probably only begin to entertain the possibility of acquiring a machine capable of "normaly" handling the likes of OMF:BG.

It is sad though, low-end machine owners should be catered, not neglected.

Cyan~Fire - Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Post subject:

Cerium wrote:

I dare you to repeat that statement in about 3 years.

What? That all games should have a low-detail option? I'll be glad to.

Cerium - Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:35 pm
Post subject:

The first statement.

Cyan~Fire - Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:44 pm
Post subject:

It follows with the second. No game should require you to play on crazy high detail.

SVS - Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:20 pm
Post subject:

That card *would* be able to play Fable but I would recommend that if you are planning on upgrading your GFX card to get a 6 series card not a 5 series. It will cost a little bit more but 5 series is already massively out of date so if you are going to upgrade get something a little bit more current so you won't just have to upgrade the card *again* in a few months.

Cerium - Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:36 pm
Post subject:

Cyan, perhaps youre not understanding me...

What is 'crazy high detail' now, will be well below standards in 3 years.

Think back to the first time you started up Doom. Remember what kind of system you had back then? Try using that same machine to play any game that youve played in the last 2 years, then get back to me with the list...

SpecShip - Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:18 pm
Post subject:

Cyan~Fire wrote:

Ew just don't play a game that requires 128MB of video RAM.

Cerium wrote:

I dare you to repeat that statement in about 3 years.

The Translation:
Cerium's hypophesis is that in about 3 years time the minimum requirement of games will far surperceed beyond a mere 128MB video RAM.
In relevance to Cyan's first statement, Cyan won't play any of the new games when that time arrives.

The Implied Question:
Would Cyan find it acceptable to avoid playing any of the games retaling 3 years from now (assuming they won't suck and break today's trend of cloning old game formulas over and over) and stick to playing <128MB video RAM required games alone?

The Implacable Logic:
Games are expected to innovate, the least rennovate.
Communities are formed around new games.
Players moving on to the new games as they are released, abandoning the old ones.
Thus, Cyan would give in and upgrade his system according to the necessity in order to participate in the games with the rest of the players.

SVS - Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:46 pm
Post subject:

SpecShip wrote:

[..]

The Translation:
Cerium's hypophesis is that in about 3 years time the minimum requirement of games will far surperceed beyond a mere 128MB video RAM.
In relevance to Cyan's first statement, Cyan won't play any of the new games when that time arrives.

The Implied Question:
Would Cyan find it acceptable to avoid playing any of the games retaling 3 years from now (assuming they won't suck and break today's trend of cloning old game formulas over and over) and stick to playing <128MB video RAM required games alone?

The Implacable Logic:
Games are expected to innovate, the least rennovate.
Communities are formed around new games.
Players moving on to the new games as they are released, abandoning the old ones.
Thus, Cyan would give in and upgrade his system according to the necessity in order to participate in the games with the rest of the players.

Or

He could just play Subspace until he dies.

Spyed - Sun Dec 25, 2005 4:43 am
Post subject:

Alot of people wish you wouldn't do that :D

SpecShip - Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:45 am
Post subject:

I don't think the problem is in playing SS untill one dies, or in one playing SS in general, at that.
It just be that it's wished certain people will die alot sooner, whether they be playing SS to that point or not.

Much, much, sooner.

Cyan~Fire - Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:36 pm
Post subject:

I'm with SVS here, actually.

And yes, I will upgrade my system eventually. The "don't buy [blah]" was just a statement for the immediate present. The one after, though, was not. No game should require the latest and greatest.

Donkano - Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:42 pm
Post subject:

Cyan~Fire wrote:

No game should require the latest and greatest.

I disagree. Look at Doom 3, when it came out it was top of the top of the line and has some hardocre graphics to it. A lot of people upgraded their graphics cards to be able to play it. And without games forcing the limitations to go up, how else will technology improve? Old games should only be catered to only to a degree. The real happening is with the games of the future that are causing home computers to improve and cause technology to improve.

Dr Brain - Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:57 pm
Post subject:

Point 1: You're assuming technology improving is a good thing. You're implying that forcing people to get new video cards once a year is a plus.

Point 2: Games don't need to REQUIRE super duper video cards to push the envelope. That's what high detail modes are made for.

Donkano - Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:15 am
Post subject:

Dr Brain wrote:

Point 1: You're assuming technology improving is a good thing.

Technology improving is a good thing. If technology doesn't improve, how will more achievements occur? If the neanderthal's took that attitude, we'd be living in the stone age today.

SpecShip - Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:36 am
Post subject:

Don't say technology improving, when your entire scope is narrowed to graphic technology advancement.
Games could do so much far without advanced graphics.
Right now, graphic is about the only thing that's being advanced, while all the other technologies are being left behind and that is a sin.

I agree with Dr Brain.

Donkano - Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:43 am
Post subject:

Nah. Programming is just about equal to graphics.
Just look at Ruby On Rails. Not too long ago it got the new framework and became a lot more popular.

SpecShip - Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:09 pm
Post subject:

To hell with you and all the eye candy mindless slobbering sheeps.

Design Is Law

"You have paid the price for your lack of vision."

Cyan~Fire - Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:21 pm
Post subject:

Lol, Grav.

What Brain said is my point put simply. Read it and realize the logic.

In fact, I'll type it again in a different way. My perfect game:
Low detail: Plays easily on my 64MB GeForce4 video card.
High detail: Plays on high-end video cards, so I can upgrade if I want to.

Dr Brain - Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:23 pm
Post subject:

Look at it a different way. Better GPUs require more transistors, right? More transistors means more power consumption which leads directly to shorter battery life on laptops. I want the option to use lower graphics in a game so I can play it longer.

Cerium - Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:52 pm
Post subject:

Im not arguing whether or not the trend of graphics is a good thing; however, its just how things work -- especially since the two graphics giants are constantly battling for #1. You couldnt play shit on a machine from 3 years ago, even with low-res options.
I know this first hand as I have my friends sony vaio from 2001 that doesnt play shit without regular video card upgrades.

Its a sad but true fact: 3 years from now if you dont upgrade your video card, youre not going to be playing a damn thing.

SpecShip - Mon Dec 26, 2005 3:02 pm
Post subject:

Cerium wrote:

Its a sad but true fact

Succinctly.

Cyan~Fire - Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:55 am
Post subject:

Yes, I'm not arguing with reality, I'm arguing that reality should be different.

SpecShip - Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:45 pm
Post subject:

We all do.
Have a beer, join the table.
Drink yourself silly and weep dry.

OutlawGene - Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:31 pm
Post subject:

I'll Trade you Gfx Cards ^.^ Mine is Better.

But I don't know to remove it. I guess you can't have it.

I don't Plan to Figure it out Either.

Out of Luck!!!

Agurus - Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:23 am
Post subject:

Graphics card are cheap (in price) if you know where to look. I suggest a big whole sale retailer (such as Sam's Club or Costco for USA people). I picked up last week a GeFroce FX 6200 (228 DDR) for a final price of $99.87 with tax and everything. I went to other stores such as BestBuy or CircutCity and they had a similar model for $149-159. As well the graphics card I bought from Sam's Club also came with a USB Game Controller, and a game called FarCry. That is one good deal worth the buy.

OutlawGene - Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:28 am
Post subject:

I wonder If I have Better

Dr Brain - Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:09 am
Post subject:

Agurus wrote:

Cheap is relative, I guess. That's $99.87 more than I'm willing to spend on a graphics card at the moment.