Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

Just How ACCURATE Is This BenchmarkFollow

#1 Jul 08 2010 at 1:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
413 posts
I can see across multiple boards that people are taking this benchmark score very seriously when it comes to gauging whether or not their system will be able to handle FFXIV or not. Well WAY back when (we're talking 02) before FFXI was released, I ran that benchmark (chocobo through Kazham Jungles w/ the tarus at the end standing outside of Ifrit's Cauldron, I believe) and got a TERRIBLE score. Like the frame rate was horrible & the score was ridiculously bad. But I purchased the game anyway and ran the game just fine with most of my settings turned up to max (minus the weather effects which caused the frame rate to drop a bit).

I was just wondering if anybody else had that experience with FFXI's benchmark or not. Because with that one experience I had, I'm kinda sorta not trusting it.
____________________________
FFXI:
Trazier-Lakshimi(Garuda) Server:
Tarutaru BLM75/DRG75/SMN60/RDM48/WHM45

Theonehio wrote:
PsylockePhoenix wrote:
I apoligize if it came off wrong, in my head it didnt sound argumentive.


You're on Allah, just posting can be turned into an argument.
#2 Jul 08 2010 at 1:42 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
FFXI was an extremely low settings game. The minimum requirements were an 800 MHz P3 processor and 128 MB ram. FFXIV is on the total opposite end of the spectrum, there is quite literally NO other game on the market or in development that looks to compare to it.

Until the game actually comes out, no one is going to be able to say exactly what performance they're getting out of the actual game, and the NDA is in effect regarding the alpha and the beta (both of which will be lower than the actual game).

The safest bet is to assume the benchmark is accurate and base your decisions around that.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#3 Jul 08 2010 at 1:46 AM Rating: Good
Mikhalia wrote:
FFXI was an extremely low settings game. The minimum requirements were an 800 MHz P3 processor and 128 MB ram. FFXIV is on the total opposite end of the spectrum, there is quite literally NO other game on the market or in development that looks to compare to it.

Until the game actually comes out, no one is going to be able to say exactly what performance they're getting out of the actual game, and the NDA is in effect regarding the alpha and the beta (both of which will be lower than the actual game).

The safest bet is to assume the benchmark is accurate and base your decisions around that.



You know... with all the different people making posts and threads about their benchmark scores and possible comp configs... I wonder how big of a problem this is going to create for SE at launch time.
#4 Jul 08 2010 at 1:47 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
224 posts
Quote:
JeuxOnLine: The minimum prerequisite that appears on pre-orders are very different from those required for alpha testing, but they are insufficient to achieve a correct score at Benchmark. How can you explain such a drop of prerequisites?

Tanaka: Because it is a MMORPG , we have maximized the quality of the game so that players benefit long term. Over time, I'm sure you can have a high score but Benchmark is perhaps not yet, at present, of equipment to obtain the maximum scores in Benchmark, it has been somehow it on purpose. But because technology evolves rapidly, you're in the very near future able to reach a high score with an average computer.



Quoted from an interview. Thread is about half way down the first page of our forum right now.
#5 Jul 08 2010 at 1:50 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Nalamwen wrote:
Quote:
JeuxOnLine: The minimum prerequisite that appears on pre-orders are very different from those required for alpha testing, but they are insufficient to achieve a correct score at Benchmark. How can you explain such a drop of prerequisites?

Tanaka: Because it is a MMORPG , we have maximized the quality of the game so that players benefit long term. Over time, I'm sure you can have a high score but Benchmark is perhaps not yet, at present, of equipment to obtain the maximum scores in Benchmark, it has been somehow it on purpose. But because technology evolves rapidly, you're in the very near future able to reach a high score with an average computer.



Quoted from an interview. Thread is about half way down the first page of our forum right now.


Google translator butchered the **** out of that. Could someone who speaks french go here and tell us what it says? I'd be ever so appreciative :)

EDIT: I'll save you the work:

JeuxOnline : Les prérequis minimum présentés sur la page de pré-commande sont vraiment différents de ceux qui étaient demandés pour l'alpha test, mais ils sont également insuffisants pour atteindre un score correct au Benchmark. Comment pouvez-vous expliquer une telle baisse de prérequis?

Tanaka : Parce qu'il s'agit d'un MMORPG, nous avons maximisé la qualité du jeu afin que les joueurs en profitent à long terme. Avec le temps, je suis sûr que vous pourrez avoir un score élevé au Benchmark mais il n'existe peut-être même pas encore, à l'heure actuelle, de matériel permettant d'obtenir les scores maximum au Benchmark, cela a été, en quelque sorte, fait exprès. Mais parce que les technologies évoluent rapidement, vous serez dans un futur très proche capables d'atteindre un score élevé avec un ordinateur moyen.

Could someone give an actual (not tossed into an online translator and spit out) translation of that please?

EDIT2: This made me chuckle: "l'alpha test" I always find it amusing when languages besides English take an "english word" (like 'internet' or 'computer' something) and do minimal changes to it when using it. For example I think "Konpyuta" is Computer in Japanese.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 3:56am by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#6 Jul 08 2010 at 1:52 AM Rating: Excellent
let me have a look-see ^^

Les prérequis minimum présentés sur la page de pré-commande sont vraiment différents de ceux qui étaient demandés pour l'alpha test, mais ils sont également insuffisants pour atteindre un score correct au Benchmark. Comment pouvez-vous expliquer une telle baisse de prérequis?

The minimum specs shown on the page of the pre-order are very different from those that were required for the Alpha Test, but they are still deficient to reach a good score on the benchmark. How can you explain such a lowering of prerequisites?


Tanaka : Parce qu'il s'agit d'un MMORPG, nous avons maximisé la qualité du jeu afin que les joueurs en profitent à long terme. Avec le temps, je suis sûr que vous pourrez avoir un score élevé au Benchmark mais il n'existe peut-être même pas encore, à l'heure actuelle, de matériel permettant d'obtenir les scores maximum au Benchmark, cela a été, en quelque sorte, fait exprès. Mais parce que les technologies évoluent rapidement, vous serez dans un futur très proche capables d'atteindre un score élevé avec un ordinateur moyen.

Because it's an MMORPG, we maximized the graphical quality of the game so that the gamers benefit from it for a long time. With time, I am sure that you can have a high score on the benchmark but perhaps not yet, at present, with the current technology. This was done somewhat purposely. But because technologies evolve so quickly, you will be, in the very close future capable of attaining a high score with a medium powered computer.

Some of this is pretty paraphrased... some parts of that were nonsense to me.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 1:10am by Osarion
#7 Jul 08 2010 at 1:58 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
224 posts
Quote:
Because it is a MMORPG , we have maximized the quality of the game so that players benefit long term. Over time, I'm sure you can have a high score but Benchmark is perhaps not yet, at present, of equipment to obtain the maximum scores in Benchmark, it has been somehow it on purpose. But because technology evolves rapidly, you're in the very near future able to reach a high score with an average computer.



I take it to mean this.

They have maximized the quality of the game for longevity. Over time a high benchmark score can be achieved but maybe not at the present. Equipment to get a high score on the benchmark will be easy in the near future with an average computer.

Pretty much what everyone has been saying. Big bucks to play the game on max settings now. Cheaper to do it later.

As far as I can tell, he didn't really answer the question as to why the benchmark scores are so much different than the min requirements to play the client.

But yes, a clear translation would be nice. After all, I don't think anyone speaks Google.
#8 Jul 08 2010 at 2:04 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Nalamwen wrote:
Quote:
Because it is a MMORPG , we have maximized the quality of the game so that players benefit long term. Over time, I'm sure you can have a high score but Benchmark is perhaps not yet, at present, of equipment to obtain the maximum scores in Benchmark, it has been somehow it on purpose. But because technology evolves rapidly, you're in the very near future able to reach a high score with an average computer.



I take it to mean this.

They have maximized the quality of the game for longevity. Over time a high benchmark score can be achieved but maybe not at the present. Equipment to get a high score on the benchmark will be easy in the near future with an average computer.

Pretty much what everyone has been saying. Big bucks to play the game on max settings now. Cheaper to do it later.

As far as I can tell, he didn't really answer the question as to why the benchmark scores are so much different than the min requirements to play the client.

But yes, a clear translation would be nice. After all, I don't think anyone speaks Google.


You pretty much said what I thought; that's how I understood the translation too, but I felt, as you did, that they didn't really answer the question. The question wasn't "Why are the requirements so high?" it was "Why did you give us requirements that won't score 1500 on the benchmark when you said a 1500 is the minimum to run the game?"

e.g. how they list an Athlon X2 and a Core 2 Duo but I wouldn't suggest even attempting to try the game without a quad core, if the benchmark is any indication.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#9 Jul 08 2010 at 3:19 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,153 posts
@Mikhalia
Quote:
EDIT2: This made me chuckle: "l'alpha test" I always find it amusing when languages besides English take an "english word" (like 'internet' or 'computer' something) and do minimal changes to it when using it. For example I think "Konpyuta" is Computer in Japanese.


What's even more funny is the coincidence that the word "computer" is actually of french origin, and the anglophone world bent the original to it's liking in the first place ^.^/
#10 Jul 08 2010 at 3:54 AM Rating: Good
Mikhalia wrote:
Nalamwen wrote:
Quote:
Because it is a MMORPG , we have maximized the quality of the game so that players benefit long term. Over time, I'm sure you can have a high score but Benchmark is perhaps not yet, at present, of equipment to obtain the maximum scores in Benchmark, it has been somehow it on purpose. But because technology evolves rapidly, you're in the very near future able to reach a high score with an average computer.



I take it to mean this.

They have maximized the quality of the game for longevity. Over time a high benchmark score can be achieved but maybe not at the present. Equipment to get a high score on the benchmark will be easy in the near future with an average computer.

Pretty much what everyone has been saying. Big bucks to play the game on max settings now. Cheaper to do it later.

As far as I can tell, he didn't really answer the question as to why the benchmark scores are so much different than the min requirements to play the client.

But yes, a clear translation would be nice. After all, I don't think anyone speaks Google.


You pretty much said what I thought; that's how I understood the translation too, but I felt, as you did, that they didn't really answer the question. The question wasn't "Why are the requirements so high?" it was "Why did you give us requirements that won't score 1500 on the benchmark when you said a 1500 is the minimum to run the game?"

e.g. how they list an Athlon X2 and a Core 2 Duo but I wouldn't suggest even attempting to try the game without a quad core, if the benchmark is any indication.
I scored a 2100 with my Athalon 64 x2 6000+. Not to say that a quad core is a waste, because i will be upgrading it in the future. All i am saying is, people with a decent dual core can upgrade their graphics card first, and still play, if money is an issue
#11 Jul 08 2010 at 7:40 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
Quote:
You know... with all the different people making posts and threads about their benchmark scores and possible comp configs... I wonder how big of a problem this is going to create for SE at launch time.
Well based on the interview it sounds like SE is aware that most people will get low scores right now. Maybe they're working on config option so that the game is playable now with the beta spec then later on you can start maxing out graphics.
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#12 Jul 08 2010 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
Well the benchmark only allowed for two resolutions, 720p and 1080p. My computer met the minimum requirements listed (exceeded the RAM and GPU requirements) and I scored 150 points under the minimum 1500 on the benchmark on 720p. All they have to do is allow for lower resolutions to be options, and I doubt these machines with lower scores will have that much of a problem. Also remember the benchmark only ran under windowed mode which is more taxing than running the game in full screen. I for one am not taking this benchmark as the final say in what kind of machines will be able to play the game decently. If you want max settings and high detail, then yeah use it as a barometer for tweaking your system. Otherwise if you meet the minimum requirements (which compared to some current offline games is pretty high), I wouldn't worry too much. If the game can't play on machines of that level, it's only setting itself up for failure. There are a lot more gamers out there with budget or older machines than there are enthusiast players who update their hardware every year.
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#13 Jul 08 2010 at 8:54 AM Rating: Decent
Harri wrote:
Well the benchmark only allowed for two resolutions, 720p and 1080p. My computer met the minimum requirements listed (exceeded the RAM and GPU requirements) and I scored 150 points under the minimum 1500 on the benchmark on 720p. All they have to do is allow for lower resolutions to be options, and I doubt these machines with lower scores will have that much of a problem. Also remember the benchmark only ran under windowed mode which is more taxing than running the game in full screen. I for one am not taking this benchmark as the final say in what kind of machines will be able to play the game decently. If you want max settings and high detail, then yeah use it as a barometer for tweaking your system. Otherwise if you meet the minimum requirements (which compared to some current offline games is pretty high), I wouldn't worry too much. If the game can't play on machines of that level, it's only setting itself up for failure. There are a lot more gamers out there with budget or older machines than there are enthusiast players who update their hardware every year.


That's all well and good and for the sake of people whose computers don't currently seem up the the task, I hope you're right. At the same time, I hope people flunking the benchmark and clinging to hope that it's grossly inadequate are keenly aware that there's already enough ******** taking place here and if it turns out the benchmark was roughly accurate that this isn't going to be the place to whine about it. We've all been given a heads up that was originally offered over a year ago. Take it or leave it.
#14 Jul 08 2010 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
43 posts
Quote:

You know... with all the different people making posts and threads about their benchmark scores and possible comp configs... I wonder how big of a problem this is going to create for SE at launch time.


I can see it being a big problem actually... Yes, I'm glad that they're thinking about the future, and making sure that this game lasts for a very long time. But at what cost? Somehow I think they might end up losing players because they won't be able to play the game right away, others (whom shall not be named) will not play and feel compelled to think of it as a personal vendetta against SE... SE needs to be considerate of the present as well.

It's funny, I was reading an article on EDGE (a gaming magazine) where they talked to a sony developer, and they were making the argument that, while higher quality graphics are great for MMO's, it doesn't help if it ends up forcing a good portion of your fanbase to buy expensive computers and that's why (according to this person) it was better to be very considerate about system specs NOW in order to get people playing the game (and giving you money) and then later on, enhance the graphics. SE on the other hand, is doing the opposite here.

Not that I don't want to play this game, I do, but I'm not sure if I'll be playing it right away if I have to buy a new system to run it. My current PC is 1-2 years old for crying out loud... I remember when in the past, I didn't replace my system until AT LEAST having it for 5 years.
#15 Jul 08 2010 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
43 posts
Quote:


That's all well and good and for the sake of people whose computers don't currently seem up the the task, I hope you're right. At the same time, I hope people flunking the benchmark and clinging to hope that it's grossly inadequate are keenly aware that there's already enough ******** taking place here and if it turns out the benchmark was roughly accurate that this isn't going to be the place to whine about it. We've all been given a heads up that was originally offered over a year ago. Take it or leave it.


Wow... wonderful to know you're the kind of "helpful players" we're gonna meet in game. You should make a point while playing, to let everyone in your vicinity know not to bother you or "whine" if they have an honest request or need any kind of info. That way they can avoid being scolded "Just check Zam noob, there's tons of topics on that already dur!"

I know many users here have already stated the hope that FF14 didn't end up having that smug elitist crowd who always liked to tell you what to do, and what not to do... but man, I'm just not sure about that anymore from all the examples of a number of the users I've seen here. Sad really.
#16 Jul 08 2010 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
That's all well and good and for the sake of people whose computers don't currently seem up the the task, I hope you're right. At the same time, I hope people flunking the benchmark and clinging to hope that it's grossly inadequate are keenly aware that there's already enough ******** taking place here and if it turns out the benchmark was roughly accurate that this isn't going to be the place to whine about it. We've all been given a heads up that was originally offered over a year ago. Take it or leave it.
All I'm saying is people shouldn't suddenly feel the need they have to run out and blow money on upgrading or buying a new system right now when they have the hardware that already meets the requirements. Tuck the money away and take a wait and see approach, unless of course you are in the position to blow money on whatever you want, then knock yourself out. In this economy though, a good majority of people are not in that position, and if they are trying to be smart with their budget it's best to simply use the benchmark as just a heads up, but not a "this is exactly how the game is going to run".

I agree though, if you got a sh*t score on the benchmark you shouldn't be surprised the game doesn't run well or look like it does in the demos. The thing is, those score descriptions seem rather subjective and vague. Obviously the higher the score the better your system is going to run the game, but it really doesn't give an indication of what exactly you are sacrificing. Some people don't care about seeing every blade of grass or certain affects, as long as the game runs at a decent FPS where you aren't getting a headache looking at the screen. I find it rather risky putting entry level specs on an MMO higher than what a lot of graphic intensive offline games will run at on medium settings.

Edit: You also have to wonder how much of the score issues are driver related, and once we see what driver versions are optimized for the game the kind of an effect they will have on scores. FFXI was notorious for running horridly on certain drivers and better on others. There are already people posting significant differences in scores based on what driver they used.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 10:35am by Harri
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#17 Jul 08 2010 at 9:18 AM Rating: Decent
Yofune wrote:
Quote:


That's all well and good and for the sake of people whose computers don't currently seem up the the task, I hope you're right. At the same time, I hope people flunking the benchmark and clinging to hope that it's grossly inadequate are keenly aware that there's already enough ******** taking place here and if it turns out the benchmark was roughly accurate that this isn't going to be the place to whine about it. We've all been given a heads up that was originally offered over a year ago. Take it or leave it.


Wow... wonderful to know you're the kind of "helpful players" we're gonna meet in game. You should make a point while playing, to let everyone in your vicinity know not to bother you or "whine" if they have an honest request or need any kind of info. That way they can avoid being scolded "Just check Zam noob, there's tons of topics on that already dur!"

I know many users here have already stated the hope that FF14 didn't end up having that smug elitist crowd who always liked to tell you what to do, and what not to do... but man, I'm just not sure about that anymore from all the examples of a number of the users I've seen here. Sad really.


I bet if I were to go back over the last several months and find every post I've made in an effort to be helpful to people with regards to hardware requirements for XIV, what to expect, what you'll need to reach reasonable performance standards etc. and try to link them all here, I'd break the per-post markup limit. It's not about being helpful/not being helpful. It's about people being given information, ignoring it, and then turning around and ******** when they suddenly find themselves shocked/disappointed. I've been trying to help people understand that XIV was going to be demanding from a PC hardware standpoint for MONTHS and it wasn't until the benchmark came out that all of a sudden people sat up and took notice. And do you know how I knew it was going to be demanding? Because Tanaka told us so over a year ago.

And now that the initial furor over the benchmark has passed, people are STILL trying to negotiate. They're still clinging to faint hope that the benchmark is way off and the game will still run fine on dated hardware and all that and like I said...if that turns out to be the case, awesome. And if not, ******** about it here isn't going to solve the problem. And in light of everything done by people like Mikhalia and Lamnethx to inform people and help them understand what is required, whining about not making the cut here would be a slap in their respective faces.

Please don't start with the, "ur mean meaner head meaner elitist mean" crap. There are hundreds of posts on these boards...no small number of which were made by me...trying to help people to understand. We've done our part. Now I'm saying it's up to everyone else to step up to the plate, be grown ups, and take responsibility for their own choices. Hope? Sure. ******** up the boards if/when you're let down? No. There's already been more than enough of that.
#18 Jul 08 2010 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
1,949 posts
Let me take a stab at the translation thing:
Tanaka wrote:
Parce qu'il s'agit d'un MMORPG, nous avons maximisé la qualité du jeu afin que les joueurs en profitent à long terme. Avec le temps, je suis sûr que vous pourrez avoir un score élevé au Benchmark mais il n'existe peut-être même pas encore, à l'heure actuelle, de matériel permettant d'obtenir les scores maximum au Benchmark, cela a été, en quelque sorte, fait exprès. Mais parce que les technologies évoluent rapidement, vous serez dans un futur très proche capables d'atteindre un score élevé avec un ordinateur moyen.


"Because [FFXIV] is an MMORPG, we have maxed the game's [visual] quality so players can enjoy it for a long time. With time, I'm sure you will be able to get a high rating on the benchmark, but right now, there might not be any hardware able to get the highest score. This was pretty much designed on purpose. But technology advances rapidly, you will, in the near future, be able to get good scores with a humble and affordable computer."
____________________________
FFXIV: Cloe Delisle Scholar, officer of the SWAGGER Free company, Sargatanas server.
#19 Jul 08 2010 at 10:11 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
556 posts
Remember FFXI had 3 Benchmarks! Each more accurate than the next.
____________________________
Jayy Submor-Hyperion-Slash Flex
#20 Jul 08 2010 at 10:53 AM Rating: Default
2 posts
There is no way in **** this Benchmark is accurate. I score 874 every time. Unless someone can tell me a good reason why i have a crappy score heres my comp specs.
[Windows 7 Ultimate (64 Bit)]
[NF750-G55]
[NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT 1GB DDR2 PCI-E 2.0] (soon to be running 2 of these)
[AMD Athlon II x4 Processor (640) AM3]
[Corsair XMS3 DDR3 4GB] (soon to be running 2 of these aswell)

My Card is set to performace and my drivers are up to date. It doesn't make sence even check my specs to those required for beta testing that it shows on the main FFXIV site.
#21 Jul 08 2010 at 10:56 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT 1GB DDR2 PCI-E 2.0


Instead of adding another 9500, you should think about putting a more modern card in.
#22 Jul 08 2010 at 11:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Fizzel123 wrote:
Unless someone can tell me a good reason why i have a crappy score heres my comp specs.



Crappy video card = crappy score.

Don't worry, mine's even worse. It's time for both of us to upgrade.

I'm waiting until September for prices to drop, though.
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#23 Jul 08 2010 at 11:20 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

I bet if I were to go back over the last several months and find every post I've made in an effort to be helpful to people with regards to hardware requirements for XIV, what to expect, what you'll need to reach reasonable performance standards etc. and try to link them all here, I'd break the per-post markup limit. It's not about being helpful/not being helpful. It's about people being given information, ignoring it, and then turning around and ******** when they suddenly find themselves shocked/disappointed. I've been trying to help people understand that XIV was going to be demanding from a PC hardware standpoint for MONTHS and it wasn't until the benchmark came out that all of a sudden people sat up and took notice. And do you know how I knew it was going to be demanding? Because Tanaka told us so over a year ago.

And now that the initial furor over the benchmark has passed, people are STILL trying to negotiate. They're still clinging to faint hope that the benchmark is way off and the game will still run fine on dated hardware and all that and like I said...if that turns out to be the case, awesome. And if not, ******** about it here isn't going to solve the problem. And in light of everything done by people like Mikhalia and Lamnethx to inform people and help them understand what is required, whining about not making the cut here would be a slap in their respective faces.

Please don't start with the, "ur mean meaner head meaner elitist mean" crap. There are hundreds of posts on these boards...no small number of which were made by me...trying to help people to understand. We've done our part. Now I'm saying it's up to everyone else to step up to the plate, be grown ups, and take responsibility for their own choices. Hope? Sure. sh*tting up the boards if/when you're let down? No. There's already been more than enough of that.


Maybe because people don't have the money to upgrade and their only saving grace was the PS3 which is now delayed. You're a helpful poster in tech matters Aur, but you're also a elitist prick. As a matter of fact, you're the Rog of the FFXIV forums. You expected people to take your word on the high-tech setting of FFXIV based off Tanaka's word alone from a year ago. Seriously grow up, SE isn't a company known for keeping their promises. Almost all of their info is misleading(See PS3 launch) and just because you were right, you expect everyone else to be on the same page. You also fail to grasp that because the official Sept 30th release is close at hand, the forums are attracting a lot of new attention. Most of these people probably never expected most of this stuff to happen so fast. Seriously, FFXIV shouldn't even be coming out until DEC based on what SE originally said.

"We'll have a longer Beta phase than FFXI". My math isn't great, but 4(FF11)-3(FF14)=1. How long is the Beta phase again?

Well smart guy, SE lied to us again. Tanaka said we would have a longer Beta. He also said we would have a PS3/PC simultianous launch. I don't care if plans changed as obviously you wish to hold something said over a year ago to people's head. You don't care for the posts, don't read them. If you continue to post b.s. such as this post, I'm going to report you. So please for your own sanity, open the door and go outside and see what sunshine looks like.
#24 Jul 08 2010 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
I don't see how the recommended spec are out of line with the benchmark.

I have a C2D @ 3Ghz paired with a 9600GT and 4GB of ram (only slightly better than the beta requirements), and I score ~2200 on low res.
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#25 Jul 08 2010 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
2 posts
if i go with a "EVGA 01G-P3-1465-AR GeForce GTX 465 Video Card - 1024MB GDDR5, PCI-Express 2.0, Dual DVI, Mini HDMI, SLI, DirectX 11" check it out here >>>> http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6291887&CatId=28

This would be more then enough to get a better score with this benchmark?
#26 Jul 08 2010 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
Fizzel123 wrote:
if i go with a "EVGA 01G-P3-1465-AR GeForce GTX 465 Video Card - 1024MB GDDR5, PCI-Express 2.0, Dual DVI, Mini HDMI, SLI, DirectX 11" check it out here >>>> http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6291887&CatId=28

This would be more then enough to get a better score with this benchmark?


The GTX 465 should be fine for XIV.



It would be awesome if we had someone on the forums with access to lots hardware that could swap different cards in and post the different results. Just the video card alone would be interesting to see.
#27 Jul 08 2010 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
630 posts
You will probably reach lows of 5200** and highs around 2500**


**These are estimates based off what I have seen a GTX 465 perform.
#28 Jul 08 2010 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
630 posts
Osarion, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Fizzel123 wrote:
if i go with a "EVGA 01G-P3-1465-AR GeForce GTX 465 Video Card - 1024MB GDDR5, PCI-Express 2.0, Dual DVI, Mini HDMI, SLI, DirectX 11" check it out here >>>> http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6291887&CatId=28

This would be more then enough to get a better score with this benchmark?


The GTX 465 should be fine for XIV.



It would be awesome if we had someone on the forums with access to lots hardware that could swap different cards in and post the different results. Just the video card alone would be interesting to see.


I don't remember the exact mobo, and I think those clocks are correct (and 100% stable).

core i5 750 (@3.6Ghz)
gtx 465 (core clock 750, processor clock 1700)
4gb ddr3 1600Mhz
Gigabyte Mobo

Low: 6000
High: 3200

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 2:38pm by burtonsnow

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 2:39pm by burtonsnow

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 2:47pm by burtonsnow
#29 Jul 08 2010 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Pickins wrote:
I don't see how the recommended spec are out of line with the benchmark.

I have a C2D @ 3Ghz paired with a 9600GT and 4GB of ram (only slightly better than the beta requirements), and I score ~2200 on low res.


For the most part, the specs given do tend to line up with benchmark scores. Every so often, we see an anomoly where someone is under the minimum but gets a 1600-1800, and every so often we see an anomaly where someone just BARELY meets them and is getting a 1300-1400.

98% of the time though, the scores are pretty much on par.

As for all the people saying "SE is wrong, the benchmark is wrong, I am the god of computing, despite my inferior rig, and I know that I am right"... that will only work if you -are- right. You're banking your ability to install the game and log on on release day on the notion that something SE has been telling us for over a year has been wrong the entire time.

Now I'm not going to claim that they've never been wrong or that they're infallible, but it I were in a position where I wanted to be up and running on day 1, I wouldn't be risking this on the notion that the game developer is telling me I can't run the game and -I- think -they- are wrong.

Who knows, maybe in September, we'll find out that rigs with a 1000+ score can manage to handle the game on minimum settings at 5-10 FPS. In that case, your playing experience will be horrible, but I guess it works.

Consider the alternative for a second though. Step back and consider the possibility that you might be wrong and ask yourself what that means.

Let's say you have a rig that doesn't meet the minimum specs, performs poorly on the benchmark and you're adamantly certain that your system WILL run the game, no matter what ANYONE tells you.

So you preorder the game, you install it... and the installer fails. You try again... and it fails again. You try again, and maybe it works this time, but you get a DirectX error or something... 4-5 hours later, you STILL can't get it to run, and everyone else has been killing bunnies while you've been banging on your keyboard. Now, not only can you not play at all today, but you NEED to drop money on new parts -now-, and they won't show up for 3 to 5 business days (unless you want to go down to your local computer store and pay retail for the parts).

Ask yourself this: "If I'm wrong, am I okay with the fact that I will waste several hours in frustration attempting to play the game, failing, and being forced to drop money on parts to upgrade my system, since I can't return an opened PC game with a code I've already used up?"

If you are, then you're welcome to continue thinking that way. You may be right. But you also may not, so don't go telling other people to think that way because in 3 months when their game doesn't work either, they're not going to complain to you for giving them wrong information, they're going to complain to -us- that they were told their system would run it, it doesn't, and -we- have to clean up -your- mess.

ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Well smart guy, SE lied to us again. Tanaka said we would have a longer Beta. He also said we would have a PS3/PC simultianous launch. I don't care if plans changed as obviously you wish to hold something said over a year ago to people's head. You don't care for the posts, don't read them. If you continue to post b.s. such as this post, I'm going to report you. So please for your own sanity, open the door and go outside and see what sunshine looks like.


It's hard not to read posts about people's computers when they plaster half of page 1. I'm one of the people that has been busting my *** to help other posters get systems that will run the game WELL also. For the most part, I'm ending up with a lot of people who ask a question (or two, or three), get answers, and they walk away more knowledgeable than before, knowing exactly what they're going to buy, and with the confidence that their system will not only run the game, but run it on good settings. The alternative that you're attempting to suggest is to bank your ability to play the game at all on launch day on the possibility that SE may be wrong.

The problem with that is, you're not setting any parameters. If you just start blatantly saying "the benchmark is wrong!" as if you know what you're talking about and have any proof that the benchmark actually -is- wrong (read: No one will have this proof one way or another until 9/22), means that you're going to end up with people with anywhere from scores of 1400ish who just barely didn't make it to people with scores of 200-300 who totally bombed out, all thinking that they have a chance at running it. At best, some of these people might actually manage to get it to work. At worst, none of them will. In either case, there WILL be people for whom it WILL not work, and as I said to the guy above you, they're not going to remember who told them to just ignore SE, they're just going to sh*t up the forum with "I was told my Pentium 4 box with a Radeon 3500 would work and it isn't!" and those of us like myself and Aurelius who have been TRYING to help people are going to have to deal with attempting to bring them down to Earth, while you're long gone.

We're putting people in a position that they KNOW they will be able to run the game on reasonable settings. You're putting people in a position where they THINK that they MIGHT be able to run it AT ALL, based on the POSSIBILITY that the benchmark MIGHT be wrong. You're setting people up for a large chance of failure with only a tiny hope of success that hinges on a lot of conjecture and speculation.

If SE did turn out to be wrong, I'm pretty sure we could expect to see a number of people screaming "Hey, we knew SE was lying!" "Yeah, go us!" "Woohoo!", but if/when SE turns out to be right, I don't expect to see very many "Wasted 4-6 hours trying to get the game to work in vain; I was wrong" posts. They're going to be "Wasted 4-6 hours trying to get this game to work in vain; SE sucks! This game sucks! I'll never buy anotehr SE product because the bastards told me it wouldn't work and it didn't!"

And what are you planning to report him for anyway?

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 2:45pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#30 Jul 08 2010 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
burtonsnow wrote:
High: 6000
Low: 3200


Was that a dyslexic moment or am I honestly reading that correctly?
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#31 Jul 08 2010 at 12:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
burtonsnow wrote:
High: 6000
Low: 3200


Was that a dyslexic moment or am I honestly reading that correctly?


Lol dyslexic and putting the high number with high. good eye :)


So Low: 6000
High: 3200

Ok that is much better. I overclocked the card more to 815 but started to get flickering. At 815 I got 6300 and 3400.

And for those wondering:

5870 same everything else: 4800 on high.
Same low score though.


I'm debating testing a GTX 480 too after seeing the results on blue gartr for the best high score.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 2:48pm by burtonsnow

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 2:50pm by burtonsnow
#32 Jul 08 2010 at 12:54 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
56 posts
For some of us the Benchmark has 100% accuracy.

Do you have a PS3? Yes?

It will run!

#33 Jul 08 2010 at 1:54 PM Rating: Good
Sage
*
94 posts
FYI that same card is $279 on newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130555&Tpk=EVGA%2001G-P3-1465-AR%20GeForce%20GTX%20465

Jeez you guys post fast.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 3:55pm by Hatro
#34 Jul 08 2010 at 2:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
413 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
FFXI was an extremely low settings game. The minimum requirements were an 800 MHz P3 processor and 128 MB ram. FFXIV is on the total opposite end of the spectrum, there is quite literally NO other game on the market or in development that looks to compare to it.

Until the game actually comes out, no one is going to be able to say exactly what performance they're getting out of the actual game, and the NDA is in effect regarding the alpha and the beta (both of which will be lower than the actual game).

The safest bet is to assume the benchmark is accurate and base your decisions around that.


FFXI is an extremely low settings game NOW. I remember when I went to pick it up from Gamestop when I was 14 and the guy telling me "are you sure your system can run it? Because there are no returns if it doesn't." Idk how many people here were around for XI's launch, but people thought it was kind of tough on the pc requirements back then too. All I'm saying is, I got an abysmal score then, and got a score in the upper 500s again now. And I ran FFXI just fine for years.

My main issue is deciding between buying an expensive laptop (which is more ideal for me) that may not run the game all that great, or just sucking it up and building a PC that I know will run the game. But once again, I'm making all these decisions off of a benchmark score that may or may not be correct. Ugh I just wish I had beta access so I'd know what I need to do NOW!
____________________________
FFXI:
Trazier-Lakshimi(Garuda) Server:
Tarutaru BLM75/DRG75/SMN60/RDM48/WHM45

Theonehio wrote:
PsylockePhoenix wrote:
I apoligize if it came off wrong, in my head it didnt sound argumentive.


You're on Allah, just posting can be turned into an argument.
#35 Jul 08 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
TaruHunk wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
FFXI was an extremely low settings game. The minimum requirements were an 800 MHz P3 processor and 128 MB ram. FFXIV is on the total opposite end of the spectrum, there is quite literally NO other game on the market or in development that looks to compare to it.

Until the game actually comes out, no one is going to be able to say exactly what performance they're getting out of the actual game, and the NDA is in effect regarding the alpha and the beta (both of which will be lower than the actual game).

The safest bet is to assume the benchmark is accurate and base your decisions around that.


FFXI is an extremely low settings game NOW. I remember when I went to pick it up from Gamestop when I was 14 and the guy telling me "are you sure your system can run it? Because there are no returns if it doesn't." Idk how many people here were around for XI's launch, but people thought it was kind of tough on the pc requirements back then too. All I'm saying is, I got an abysmal score then, and got a score in the upper 500s again now. And I ran FFXI just fine for years.

My main issue is deciding between buying an expensive laptop (which is more ideal for me) that may not run the game all that great, or just sucking it up and building a PC that I know will run the game. But once again, I'm making all these decisions off of a benchmark score that may or may not be correct. Ugh I just wish I had beta access so I'd know what I need to do NOW!


Based on my experience with gaming on laptops in general, my personal choice would be to go with the desktop. You can upgrade a desktop over time, it vents/cools a lot easier, and if you build it yourself, you can get a pretty nice looking case with glowy shiny lights and ****. I understand wanting to game on a laptop (I've done it myself, and I still lay in bed and play some stuff on my laptop) but even though my laptop's specs were slightly higher than my desktop, my desktop kicked my laptop's *** on any game (WoW, Stepmania, FFXI, UT) that I could throw at it.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#36 Jul 08 2010 at 2:21 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
TaruHunk wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
FFXI was an extremely low settings game. The minimum requirements were an 800 MHz P3 processor and 128 MB ram. FFXIV is on the total opposite end of the spectrum, there is quite literally NO other game on the market or in development that looks to compare to it.

Until the game actually comes out, no one is going to be able to say exactly what performance they're getting out of the actual game, and the NDA is in effect regarding the alpha and the beta (both of which will be lower than the actual game).

The safest bet is to assume the benchmark is accurate and base your decisions around that.


FFXI is an extremely low settings game NOW. I remember when I went to pick it up from Gamestop when I was 14 and the guy telling me "are you sure your system can run it? Because there are no returns if it doesn't." Idk how many people here were around for XI's launch, but people thought it was kind of tough on the pc requirements back then too. All I'm saying is, I got an abysmal score then, and got a score in the upper 500s again now. And I ran FFXI just fine for years.

My main issue is deciding between buying an expensive laptop (which is more ideal for me) that may not run the game all that great, or just sucking it up and building a PC that I know will run the game. But once again, I'm making all these decisions off of a benchmark score that may or may not be correct. Ugh I just wish I had beta access so I'd know what I need to do NOW!


I had a machine that tested in the 800s on low (T8400 GT8800M 4GB RAM). My bottle neck is the GPU at this point, so anything with a dual core 2.4Ghz or better and 220M should be fine (Radeon 4570M should be ok on low as well).


Also exactly what Mik said, laptop are not ideal for high intensity gaming. They get extremely hot (one friend had to put a fan directly on his laptop or it would overheat/shutdown while playing games). Plus being able to upgrade your PC a couple years down the road is a major advantage.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 4:23pm by burtonsnow
#37 Jul 08 2010 at 2:28 PM Rating: Excellent
**
576 posts
Mikhalia wrote:

Based on my experience with gaming on laptops in general, my personal choice would be to go with the desktop. You can upgrade a desktop over time, it vents/cools a lot easier, and if you build it yourself, you can get a pretty nice looking case with glowy shiny lights and sh*t. I understand wanting to game on a laptop (I've done it myself, and I still lay in bed and play some stuff on my laptop) but even though my laptop's specs were slightly higher than my desktop, my desktop kicked my laptop's *** on any game (WoW, Stepmania, FFXI, UT) that I could throw at it.


QFT

The biggest factor for me is the ability to upgrade. I can easily toss another video card in and double my performance in most games. Not so easy with a laptop.

Also, mobile GPUs have to be castrated in comparison to their desktop brethren. Modern GPUs dissipate a lot of heat and use a lot of power, both big problems when designing mobile electronics.
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#38 Jul 08 2010 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
burtonsnow wrote:
I had a machine that tested in the 800s on low (T8400 GT8800M 4GB RAM). My bottle neck is the GPU at this point, so anything with a dual core 2.4Ghz or better and 220M should be fine (Radeon 4570M should be ok on low as well).


I don't think a 220M or a 4570M will run the game, no matter what CPU.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 3:30pm by Threx
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#39 Jul 08 2010 at 2:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
Threx wrote:
burtonsnow wrote:
I had a machine that tested in the 800s on low (T8400 GT8800M 4GB RAM). My bottle neck is the GPU at this point, so anything with a dual core 2.4Ghz or better and 220M should be fine (Radeon 4570M should be ok on low as well).


I don't think a 220M or a 4570M will run the game, no matter what CPU.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 3:30pm by Threx


My 2 year old GPU barely ran the game...I would say they can run the game on low with 15fps in high stress situations. I haven't actually compared the 8800M to those two cards but if they are even slightly better it SHOULD work on LOW.


*edit*
I just read the specs on both of those cards, you are possibly right that it might not run the game, mobile cards are tricky. When compared to my 8800GTX the specs on the GTX220M are very similar though making me believe it is possible:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-220M.20054.0.html

http://www.epartsandmore.com/product_info.php?products_id=1308&cPath=97&m1track=custom&source=google1&osCsid=t08p48m3liemmisvh45sa8bpj3

My 8800GTX also scored 2700 on low (the low is really dependent on CPU though, because that is how the PS3 is going to run it). With the lower memory bus I could see this hitting around 1700 and being playable on low.



Edited, Jul 8th 2010 4:52pm by burtonsnow
#40 Jul 08 2010 at 2:54 PM Rating: Decent
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Maybe because people don't have the money to upgrade and their only saving grace was the PS3 which is now delayed. You're a helpful poster in tech matters Aur, but you're also a elitist prick. As a matter of fact, you're the Rog of the FFXIV forums. You expected people to take your word on the high-tech setting of FFXIV based off Tanaka's word alone from a year ago. Seriously grow up, SE isn't a company known for keeping their promises. Almost all of their info is misleading(See PS3 launch) and just because you were right, you expect everyone else to be on the same page. You also fail to grasp that because the official Sept 30th release is close at hand, the forums are attracting a lot of new attention. Most of these people probably never expected most of this stuff to happen so fast. Seriously, FFXIV shouldn't even be coming out until DEC based on what SE originally said.


Stop for a moment a re-read your own words from the part I quoted. Now tell me just how in the **** SE is supposed to win with you guys. They release information and if it's what you want to hear, it's awesome. And if it was what you wanted to hear and it changes, SE is a bunch of ******* liars and **** SE and this is ******** and yadda yadda yadda. And if they release information that isn't what you wanted to hear, they're lying. They don't know what they're talking about. They'd be stupid to do it that way. Deny deny deny. And when it turns out that what they talked about has come to pass, they're ***** and liars and it's all ******** and **** SE.

So why are you here? If you have so little regard for SE that that's your general attitude, why are you playing the chump and lining up to take it in the *** yet again? Ya'll talk the talk all day long but when it comes time to be a grown up and walk the walk, you just sit around and whine and sulk. It's old.

And yet you have the chutzpah to tell me to grow up?

Quote:
"We'll have a longer Beta phase than FFXI". My math isn't great, but 4(FF11)-3(FF14)=1. How long is the Beta phase again?


Ya, and it was only supposed to be a "very brief" alpha, too. And you know what? **** happened. The alpha ran way longer than anticipated and ended up turning into a pseudo-beta. So add the alpha and the beta together and you get 5-6 months worth of public testing. It's not exactly what they said, but nor does it qualify as proof that anything SE says should be ignored. But you childish monkeys get ahold of it and all of a sudden SE "lied". Here's a tip for you that you can carry forward through the rest of your life so you don't come across as such a helpless victim: it's only LYING if they KNEW at the time they made the statements that things would turn out the way that they did. Since there's no reason to believe that they KNEW the alpha would run so long or that they KNEW they were going to encounter difficulties with the PS3 version, saying that they're lying is STUPID. Learn the **** language. It's not hard.

Quote:
Well smart guy, SE lied to us again. Tanaka said we would have a longer Beta. He also said we would have a PS3/PC simultianous launch. I don't care if plans changed as obviously you wish to hold something said over a year ago to people's head. You don't care for the posts, don't read them. If you continue to post b.s. such as this post, I'm going to report you. So please for your own sanity, open the door and go outside and see what sunshine looks like.


Report me. Please. I love it when the admins come around. You guys tend to knock it off with the crybaby trash for a few days. It's awesome.
#41 Jul 08 2010 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Report me. Please. I love it when the admins come around. You guys tend to knock it off with the crybaby trash for a few days. It's awesome.


You should report yourself :)
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#42 Jul 08 2010 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
You should report yourself :)


How long has that report button been there?
#43 Jul 08 2010 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Lamnethx of the Seven Seas wrote:
Quote:
You should report yourself :)


How long has that report button been there?


A while... I can't remember when it wasn't, although in all fairness, I've never clicked it. I just red arrow, call the person a ******** (and explain why) and F5 periodically.

Gives me more +1 that way.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#44 Jul 08 2010 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
I just red arrow, call the person a @#%^tard (and explain why) and F5 periodically.


It's the alla way.
#45 Jul 08 2010 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

Ya, and it was only supposed to be a "very brief" alpha, too. And you know what? sh*t happened. The alpha ran way longer than anticipated and ended up turning into a pseudo-beta. So add the alpha and the beta together and you get 5-6 months worth of public testing. It's not exactly what they said, but nor does it qualify as proof that anything SE says should be ignored. But you childish monkeys get ahold of it and all of a sudden SE "lied". Here's a tip for you that you can carry forward through the rest of your life so you don't come across as such a helpless victim: it's only LYING if they KNEW at the time they made the statements that things would turn out the way that they did. Since there's no reason to believe that they KNEW the alpha would run so long or that they KNEW they were going to encounter difficulties with the PS3 version, saying that they're lying is STUPID. Learn the **** language. It's not hard.


I have better things to do than argue with you. Keep on ranting and harassing people and I'll just keep reporting you.
#46 Jul 08 2010 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

Ya, and it was only supposed to be a "very brief" alpha, too. And you know what? sh*t happened. The alpha ran way longer than anticipated and ended up turning into a pseudo-beta. So add the alpha and the beta together and you get 5-6 months worth of public testing. It's not exactly what they said, but nor does it qualify as proof that anything SE says should be ignored. But you childish monkeys get ahold of it and all of a sudden SE "lied". Here's a tip for you that you can carry forward through the rest of your life so you don't come across as such a helpless victim: it's only LYING if they KNEW at the time they made the statements that things would turn out the way that they did. Since there's no reason to believe that they KNEW the alpha would run so long or that they KNEW they were going to encounter difficulties with the PS3 version, saying that they're lying is STUPID. Learn the **** language. It's not hard.


I have better things to do than argue with you. Keep on ranting and harassing people and I'll just keep reporting you.


Five bucks says you either don't report any of his posts, since he hasn't done anything wrong (ranting is not moddable/bannable, and he's not harassing you; YOU picked a fight with HIM), or that even if you did start reporting him, the admins would just tell you to cut it out.

You can report me too if you like.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 8:16pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#47 Jul 08 2010 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
Mikhalia wrote:


Five bucks says you either don't report any of his posts, since he hasn't done anything wrong (ranting is not moddable/bannable, and he's not harassing you; YOU picked a fight with HIM), or that even if you did start reporting him, the admins would just tell you to cut it out.

You can report me too if you like.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 8:16pm by Mikhalia


I seriously don't understand why you are defending his ranting/harassment of players that appear to be asking the same questions(to him) over and over. All Aur has to do is either ignore the new posts or just provide a link to the many discussion threads. The constant ******** he does is not necessary and only serves to drive people away from the forums. All I'm asking from Aur is to keep his cool and stop insulting posters he feels are lazy or stupid. As for you Mikhalia, I've found your posts to be very helpful and respectful. So why would anyone report you?
#48 Jul 08 2010 at 6:56 PM Rating: Excellent
HI GUYS HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING ON THIS FINE DAY
____________________________
christopher "pwyff" tom
ctom@zam.com | @Pwyff
#49 Jul 08 2010 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
*
68 posts
See what you guys did now? You woke up mommy and daddy... Now we're all going to get grounded for a week! :)
____________________________
FFXI- (long)Retired: 75 WAR/DRG/SAM SJ PLD/NIN
WoW- Retired: 90 Tank monk, 90 Tank Druid, 85 Tank DK, 85 Tank War, 85 everything else.
(I love to tank)
#50 Jul 08 2010 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:


Five bucks says you either don't report any of his posts, since he hasn't done anything wrong (ranting is not moddable/bannable, and he's not harassing you; YOU picked a fight with HIM), or that even if you did start reporting him, the admins would just tell you to cut it out.

You can report me too if you like.


I seriously don't understand why you are defending his ranting/harassment of players that appear to be asking the same questions(to him) over and over. All Aur has to do is either ignore the new posts or just provide a link to the many discussion threads. The constant ******** he does is not necessary and only serves to drive people away from the forums. All I'm asking from Aur is to keep his cool and stop insulting posters he feels are lazy or stupid. As for you Mikhalia, I've found your posts to be very helpful and respectful. So why would anyone report you?


I seriously don't understand why it's okay for you to troll me and then avoid your part in it.

Pwyff says hi, in case you missed it.
#51 Jul 08 2010 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
413 posts
Pickins wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:

Based on my experience with gaming on laptops in general, my personal choice would be to go with the desktop. You can upgrade a desktop over time, it vents/cools a lot easier, and if you build it yourself, you can get a pretty nice looking case with glowy shiny lights and sh*t. I understand wanting to game on a laptop (I've done it myself, and I still lay in bed and play some stuff on my laptop) but even though my laptop's specs were slightly higher than my desktop, my desktop kicked my laptop's *** on any game (WoW, Stepmania, FFXI, UT) that I could throw at it.


QFT

The biggest factor for me is the ability to upgrade. I can easily toss another video card in and double my performance in most games. Not so easy with a laptop.

Also, mobile GPUs have to be castrated in comparison to their desktop brethren. Modern GPUs dissipate a lot of heat and use a lot of power, both big problems when designing mobile electronics.


Now I'm a little disappointed. Well, not entirely... lol. But I guess that does it. To frys/amazon/wherever else I must go to build a quality desktop. I just need to find a boss @$$ tower that has the see through walls and flashy lights and what not... lol. Always wanted one of those!!!
____________________________
FFXI:
Trazier-Lakshimi(Garuda) Server:
Tarutaru BLM75/DRG75/SMN60/RDM48/WHM45

Theonehio wrote:
PsylockePhoenix wrote:
I apoligize if it came off wrong, in my head it didnt sound argumentive.


You're on Allah, just posting can be turned into an argument.
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 12 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (12)