Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

Just a thought or twoFollow

#1 Jul 12 2010 at 1:23 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
30 posts
I must say, as a vetran FFXI player from a few years ago, I wasn't very impressed with FFXIV to begin with. Eyecandy aside, I saw rehashed character and mob models with slight tweaks here and there with new names...

Now, that I've said that, I'm starting to get more excited about the release.

I remember a great number of years in FFXI. But one of the issues I had with S.E. was they seemed indifferent to their population base. Rather it was from soloability, to relics, to <insert mass compaint here>. I took a number of years before they even tackled the gillsellers (I started close to its release). Only after the economy was in shambles did they bring on the task force. Another issue was S.E. didn't want FFXI to become to mainstream (which they had said). The shear amount of effort to accomplish anything in FFXI was very rewarding and very frustrating sometimes. Getting access to Sky could be a several month ordeal if you didn't have an LS or friend base to static with.

I kinda see the same S.E. stances here in the early part. I know a lot will change. No doubt. But, I think S.E. is still interested in keeping their core player base small in the sameway as FFXI.

System Specifications: From a P.C. point of view, designing a MMO that is based on heafty system requirements is going to limit their player base on the outset. I understand their reasoning - to design a game that will age well. But, I feel they have went from one end of the spectrum to the other. I have a new laptop (yes, i know therein lies my problem - my video card is my bottle neck) that meets all the requirements except the vcard, and I barely hit 1300 on the benchmark.

Why design a game that only a few of the upper end pc's can run? Could S.E. design a game that could be ran by at least mid-range pc's that could still stand the weathering effects of time?

I have a PS3 also. And since I can't upgrade a laptop V-card, I'm stuck to the PS3 @ 720p. when it comes out. Which isn't very appealing.

This leaves me hoping for a more optimized FFXIV that will run on an Intel Core2 Quad Q9000, with 6gigs of ram and a... (insert vomit here) ATI Mobility 1ghz 4650 V-card - because wrastling the T.V. from a wife and two sons will not be possible.
#2 Jul 12 2010 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Honestly, graphics have always been low priority to me. So many people complain that XI looks bad/horrible/eye rape but I think it looks fine.

Regardless, I guess enough people whined about XI's graphics that SE is going to the opposite end of the field this time.
____________________________
[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 12 2010 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
30 posts
Yeah, I was one of those that was fine with FFXI graphics. Particularly from a character model standpoint. But, ya, a lot of folks complained and now, we are on the other end, since I JUST bought this laptop (relatively speaking), I doubt a new desktop is in my future at all.

#4 Jul 12 2010 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
372 posts
I thought and still think FFXI is beautiful. The movements of the characters are so fluid when running and during battle. They're elegant and their designs flowing, movement even more so. Sure, you can count every pixel on screen, but compared with the less than convincing flow of other MMOs (IMHO) FFXI is so much better.

Plus my character had a nice ***.
#5 Jul 12 2010 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
4,150 posts
akelah wrote:
Plus my character had a nice ***.


So did mine.
____________________________
FFXI-Garuda 2003-2009; Lakshmi 2011-8/20/13 (retired)
FFXIV: ARR - Ghost Bear, Balmung server
#6 Jul 12 2010 at 2:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
372 posts
Quote:
So did mine.


It made that long run from Sandy to the Dunes so much more entertaining...
#7 Jul 12 2010 at 2:26 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
291 posts
As a consumer stand point, I agree with you, SE could have lower the graphic a little bit so more mid range people can play the game without any upgrade. I personally don't really mind about graphic, I would pay much more attention to the content and game play of the game. However, from a gamer's point of view, if I log onto FFXIV and I see graphics very similar to FFXI, since the characters already looked very similar, and if I don't see much improvement, I'll be seriously disappointed at them.
#8 Jul 12 2010 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
372 posts
While it might hurt a huge portion of the player base (and subsequently SEs pockets) I canunderstand why they have chosen to raise the bar as far as they have. I will not be looking forward to the staggered game-play I can expect from my current graphics card and will be upgrading it ASAP. I am however grateful for small mercies, in that I can simply upgrade my existing machine.

They are wanting to put out a game that will last the next decade (/sings! Kamen Rider fans will get that). I am wanting to play this game for the next said decade. Just like FFXI.

I do also beleive the benchmark may have been a bit extreme, all MMOs come with the option of toning down the settings, maybe the mid-range can handle it. We will see.
#9 Jul 12 2010 at 2:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
4,150 posts
akelah wrote:
Quote:
So did mine.


It made that long run from Sandy to the Dunes so much more entertaining...


I'm afraid I was being sarcastic. I played a Galka. However, I did spend a majority of my time playing in first person.
____________________________
FFXI-Garuda 2003-2009; Lakshmi 2011-8/20/13 (retired)
FFXIV: ARR - Ghost Bear, Balmung server
#10 Jul 12 2010 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
dunlag wrote:
As a consumer stand point, I agree with you, SE could have lower the graphic a little bit so more mid range people can play the game without any upgrade. I personally don't really mind about graphic, I would pay much more attention to the content and game play of the game. However, from a gamer's point of view, if I log onto FFXIV and I see graphics very similar to FFXI, since the characters already looked very similar, and if I don't see much improvement, I'll be seriously disappointed at them.


Yeah, I suppose that is the secondary concern I have... I mean, aside from the setting, the characters look like FFXI characters for the most part with a few enhancements. Like removing the Galka's tail (which is great). Don't get me wrong here - I'm ok with using the same character models b/c I very much enjoyed the FFXI models.

However... the system requirements are... unwise in my opinion. From a business model standpoint, why limit your initial potential customer base because of a high tech. requirement on the front end. I read somewhere (an interview maybe) when asked about the steep hardware requirements, they (S.E.) said, the requirements will not be so steep in the future b/c PC's will improve... Ok. That is a true statement about PC's improving, but it does nothing to secure a broad subscriber base at rollout. And we have seen nearly every high profile MMO released lately fail, I'd hate to see FFXIV fail b/c S.E. has a Porche when a pretty decent Ford or Chevy or... mainstream car would do.

But, his comment about the the requirement isn't so steep for future PC's is typical of the responses I'd had grown disgrunted with when I was a FFXI player all those years ago.

#11 Jul 12 2010 at 2:45 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
30 posts
akelah wrote:
While it might hurt a huge portion of the player base (and subsequently SEs pockets) I canunderstand why they have chosen to raise the bar as far as they have. I will not be looking forward to the staggered game-play I can expect from my current graphics card and will be upgrading it ASAP. I am however grateful for small mercies, in that I can simply upgrade my existing machine.

They are wanting to put out a game that will last the next decade (/sings! Kamen Rider fans will get that). I am wanting to play this game for the next said decade. Just like FFXI.

I do also beleive the benchmark may have been a bit extreme, all MMOs come with the option of toning down the settings, maybe the mid-range can handle it. We will see.


I'm hoping for being able to tone the graphics down! I know I had a PoS PC for FFXI and ran at min. settings and did fine (except sky dropped me to single Frames).
#12 Jul 12 2010 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
372 posts
Quote:
I'm afraid I was being sarcastic. I played a Galka. However, I did spend a majority of my time playing in first person.


Galkas had cute behinds :D
#13 Jul 12 2010 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
53 posts
I am more bias towards the other end.

It's good that they make sure the graphics is top notch so that the game don't feel old in coming years.
Assuming FF14 is expected to last for 8+ years like FFXI does.

Also the low setting is very decent, it's like 720P on PS3 which most games run on. 1080P games are rare on PS3 and XBOX.
So even with the low setting, the game should still be enjoyable. I am betting that PS3 version will only run on 720P and scale up to 1080.

Actually I am glad that SE still have principles (making what they think is best quality), rather than purely making decision base on market needs. If they aim to be WOW with mass appeal, FF14 will be dead easy with kiddies graphics.
#14 Jul 12 2010 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
sarsha2 wrote:
I am more bias towards the other end.

It's good that they make sure the graphics is top notch so that the game don't feel old in coming years.
Assuming FF14 is expected to last for 8+ years like FFXI does.

Also the low setting is very decent, it's like 720P on PS3 which most games run on. 1080P games are rare on PS3 and XBOX.
So even with the low setting, the game should still be enjoyable. I am betting that PS3 version will only run on 720P and scale up to 1080.

Actually I am glad that SE still have principles (making what they think is best quality), rather than purely making decision base on market needs. If they aim to be WOW with mass appeal, FF14 will be dead easy with kiddies graphics.


I generally think that barriers to entry which are difficult to surmount are a bad thing... but at the same time, I partially feel as though there are advantages to limiting the game to "only the people who really want to play it" and keeping the people who "just give it a try" to a minimum. Try any MMORPG with few barriers to entry that invite everyone to try them (you know, the ones that plaster their banner ads all over websites) and you'll notice that for most of them, the starter areas are nigh intolerable to the point that adding more NPCs would actually raise the average IQ.

The easier it is to get into something, the more "riffraff" will get in. The harder it is to get into something, you end up with an exponentially smaller, but more mature group. Compare an inner city McDonalds to your "Evening wear and reservations a week in advance" dinner venue of choice and you see how barriers to entry keep the clientele to a small, mature, refined group.

The obvious downside is that if the barriers are too severe, you also ostracize a lot of people who could potentially be paying customers who are just not willing to jump through your hoops. There are a couple places around that I would love to eat at, but I'm not going to put on a tux and tie and book a fortnight in advance to spend $65 on an 8 oz cut of ribeye and another $5 on a glass of water; I don't care how many Michelin Stars that Chef Jean-Philipe has, it's just not worth it. I'd just as soon go down to Applebees in whatever the **** I feel like wearing and spend $25 for meal and drink. The $45 I'm saving is going to cost me in terms of having to listen to some woman two tables over arguing with her friend about whether or not she should dump her boyfriend; some brat screaming in the background, a basketball game I don't care about blaring on the TVs, and oh joy... it must be someone's birthday because all of the wait staff are clapping and I guess I won't be getting that refill for at least another 5 minutes now, will I?

To a given point, more barriers to entry will result in a better product for your customers, but you have to find a middle ground.

Edited, Jul 12th 2010 7:46pm 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.
#15 Jul 12 2010 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
Quote:
Compare an inner city McDonalds to your "Evening wear and reservations a week in advance" dinner venue of choice and you see how barriers to entry keep the clientele to a small, mature, refined group douchebags.
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#16 Jul 13 2010 at 12:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
FFXI's graphics were great for its time. It's not fair to criticize today a game that was made 9 years ago. :)
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#17 Jul 13 2010 at 6:30 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
30 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
sarsha2 wrote:
I am more bias towards the other end.

It's good that they make sure the graphics is top notch so that the game don't feel old in coming years.
Assuming FF14 is expected to last for 8+ years like FFXI does.

Also the low setting is very decent, it's like 720P on PS3 which most games run on. 1080P games are rare on PS3 and XBOX.
So even with the low setting, the game should still be enjoyable. I am betting that PS3 version will only run on 720P and scale up to 1080.

Actually I am glad that SE still have principles (making what they think is best quality), rather than purely making decision base on market needs. If they aim to be WOW with mass appeal, FF14 will be dead easy with kiddies graphics.


I generally think that barriers to entry which are difficult to surmount are a bad thing... but at the same time, I partially feel as though there are advantages to limiting the game to "only the people who really want to play it" and keeping the people who "just give it a try" to a minimum. Try any MMORPG with few barriers to entry that invite everyone to try them (you know, the ones that plaster their banner ads all over websites) and you'll notice that for most of them, the starter areas are nigh intolerable to the point that adding more NPCs would actually raise the average IQ.

The easier it is to get into something, the more "riffraff" will get in. The harder it is to get into something, you end up with an exponentially smaller, but more mature group. Compare an inner city McDonalds to your "Evening wear and reservations a week in advance" dinner venue of choice and you see how barriers to entry keep the clientele to a small, mature, refined group.

The obvious downside is that if the barriers are too severe, you also ostracize a lot of people who could potentially be paying customers who are just not willing to jump through your hoops. There are a couple places around that I would love to eat at, but I'm not going to put on a tux and tie and book a fortnight in advance to spend $65 on an 8 oz cut of ribeye and another $5 on a glass of water; I don't care how many Michelin Stars that Chef Jean-Philipe has, it's just not worth it. I'd just as soon go down to Applebees in whatever the **** I feel like wearing and spend $25 for meal and drink. The $45 I'm saving is going to cost me in terms of having to listen to some woman two tables over arguing with her friend about whether or not she should dump her boyfriend; some brat screaming in the background, a basketball game I don't care about blaring on the TVs, and oh joy... it must be someone's birthday because all of the wait staff are clapping and I guess I won't be getting that refill for at least another 5 minutes now, will I?

To a given point, more barriers to entry will result in a better product for your customers, but you have to find a middle ground.

Edited, Jul 12th 2010 7:46pm by Mikhalia


A lot of what you say here, I agree with. Yes, having a high bar does act as a "filter". FFXI did have a more mature playerbase at higher levels. If you could live through the Dunes, you could tolerate a lot. I also agree with finding a middle ground. For me that middle ground is mid-range PC requirements.

@ Sarsha2: FFXI weathered pretty good from a graphical standpoint all things considered. As for your comment about mass appeal (i.e.: WoW), my opinion is if FFXIV retains even a small portion of the inherent FFXI difficulty, that would be the filter. WoW is popular because of a HUGE marketing budget and... ease of play. It is the "plug-and-play" MMO. A lot of the subscriber base is there not because of the cartoony characters - but rather the ease of it. And it is getting easier all the time with "quality of life" patches. Cataclysm will see this trend continue. FFXIV can still have a broader entrance gateway (mid-range PC), but retain some of that difficulty to filter out the riftraft - those that want the epic loot just because they are breathing and can (sometimes on a good day) dress themselves.

#18 Jul 13 2010 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
811 posts
The cost to upgrade your PC to play a game like this isn't as grave as many make it out to be. Spend a few hundred bucks to upgrade the video card and maybe a few other minor tweaks. Is that so bad?
If you can't afford a few hundred dollars to upgrade a PC, honestly, you shouldn't be playing an MMO with a monthly subscription fee.
A few hundred dollars on a potentially great game you'll play for MANY years is not expensive. It's about as cheap as a hobby can get. Cut out one night of drinking per month for the next few months and you'll have paid for it.
#19 Jul 13 2010 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
**
394 posts
FFXI had high system requirements for its time, too. Besides, FFXIV's system requirements aren't any higher than your average PC game nowadays, so really the only people complaining about it are the more casual and non-PC gamers. I understand that SE is reaching out to a wider audience than just PC gamers, because it's a franchise that is primarily engrained in consoles, and a large portion of the MMO crowd has never had to run anything more taxing than FFXI or WoW on their PCs, but this is how it goes in the PC gaming world.

It's tough to say that without sounding elitist, and I'm certainly not trying to sound that way. I don't think of myself as part of the PC gaming master race (I play consoles just as much), and I don't feel that PC gamers should need to shell out a grand for a new system every couple of years just to keep up with the latest games. However, think of it this way: Imagine if PS2 owners who can't afford/don't want a PS3 complain that FFXIV should be on the PS2 so that more people could play it. Sounds like a silly argument doesn't it? Yet people use this same argument for PCs, and I guess it's acceptable because PC components are much more expensive than game consoles, and you have to have some sort of know-how when you're picking out or putting together a system.

While people running on weaker systems are willing to sacrifice graphical quality for the sake of saving some money, this isn't fair to people who made the investment to be able to run with high graphical quality (compare PS2 vs PS3 again). Yes, it sucks that your only options are either expensive upgrades or waiting for PS3 release, but that's how it is for any PC game, and it doesn't really give you the right to shout at SE because they "should" be catering to you. On the developer's side of things, it's not as simple as just turning down the graphics dial so that computers of a particular year will be able to run it on low settings; there has to be a minimum, and that minimum increases as you increase your maximum.

Again, all you need is a system capable of running modern games (anything out within the past year or two) decently to be able to play FFXIV. It's much more graphically intense than other MMOs out there, but it's certainly not pushing any sort of limits when it comes to PC games in general. People who are saying that FFXIV's system requirements are too high are giving the wrong impression that it's some graphical juggernaut that is more demanding than Crysis, and it's really not. A mid-range build will handle it just fine, but if you're not happy with needing to upgrade, I'm sorry to say that FFXIV's requirements are simply par for the course.
#20 Jul 13 2010 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
ShonaSeraph wrote:
The cost to upgrade your PC to play a game like this isn't as grave as many make it out to be. Spend a few hundred bucks to upgrade the video card and maybe a few other minor tweaks. Is that so bad?
If you can't afford a few hundred dollars to upgrade a PC, honestly, you shouldn't be playing an MMO with a monthly subscription fee.
A few hundred dollars on a potentially great game you'll play for MANY years is not expensive. It's about as cheap as a hobby can get. Cut out one night of drinking per month for the next few months and you'll have paid for it.



This.

You only need $330 to get a CPU+GPU combination that will run the game (4000 on low on the benchmark) easily. If you need to upgrade your motherboard and RAM, that's only another $200. A total of $530 isn't that bad.

CPU: Phenom II x4 955 = $160
GPU: Radeon HD 5770 = $170
Mobo: $100
RAM: 4Gb = $100
Total: $530

If you can afford a $13 monthly fee, you should be able to afford a ~$500 upgrade. Even if you can't, you can always buy the much cheaper PS3.

I myself had a budget of $350 for a new CPU+GPU combo. However, I'm cutting back on the drinking (about 15-20 bucks each night I go out) to extend that budget to $450, because I really want to play on higher settings. By September I will have that extended budget, not to mention the prices of hardware will likely drop a bit.

If you want something very badly, but don't have enough money for it...find a way. I'm sure you can. :)



Edited, Jul 13th 2010 8:48am by Threx
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#21Yogtheterrible, Posted: Jul 13 2010 at 10:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The only people who are complaining about PC requirements are 1) people who spent a boat load on a gaming laptop two years ago and are now upset that it wont work with new games (generally people who buy based on product name), 2) people with ancient desktops that should have been thrown in the trash years ago (probably FFXI players that scored a "impossible to gauge" on the FFXI benchmark and actually thought that mattered on any game newer than 5 years old) and 3) people that got conned into buying a piece of crap new computer (honestly? do you do no research at all before laying down a grand?). In all cases they are people so ignorant about computers I don't feel one bit sorry for them.
#22 Jul 13 2010 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
To compare FFXI's requirements:

Game Name
CPU Min | Rec
RAM Min | Rec
Video Min | Rec
HD

Where only one spec is listed, minimum/recommended were the same. Dates are the copyright date on the box. I keep all my boxes from nearly every game I own so I can tell you the requirements of any of 'em :)

Civilization 3, 2001 Box
CPU P2 300 | P2 500
RAM 32 MB | 64 MB
Video DX 8.0 Compatible with 16 bit color @ 1024x768
HD 550 MB

Neverwinter Nights, 2002 Box
CPU P2 450/AMD K6-450 | P3 800/Athlon 800
RAM 128 | 256
Video 16 MB TNT2 | GeForce 2/ATI Radeon 32 MB
HD 1.2 GB

FFXI, 2003 box:
CPU P3 800 | P4
RAM 128 MB | 256 MB
Video GeForce/Radeon 9000 32 MB | GeForce FX 64 MB
HD 6 GB


World of Warcraft, 2004 box
CPU P3 800/Athlon 800 | P4 1.5/AMD XP 1500+
RAM 512 MB | 1 GB
Video 32 MB 3D GeForce 2 | 64 MB
HD 10 GB

Unreal Tournament 2004
CPU P3 1.0 GHz/Athlon 1.0 GHz | 1.2 GHz
RAM 128 MB | 256 MB
Video 32 MB | 64 B GeForce 2 or Radeon with HW TNL
HD 5.5 GB

Doom 3, 2004 box (only minimum listed; no recommended)
CPU P4 1.5 GHz/Athlon XP 1500+
RAM 384 MB
Video 64 MB Radeon 8500+/GeForce 3Ti/4MX/6800
HD 2.2 GB

Civilization IV, 2005 box
CPU 1.2 GHz P4 | 1.8 GHz P4
RAM 512 MB
Video 64 MB GeForce 2/Radeon 7500 | 128 MB
HD 1.7 GB

The CPU, Video, adn RAM requirements for XI were about average for where they should have been, compared to their competition. The HD requirement was a bit high for its time, but WoW outdid it in terms of requirements in the RAM and HD fields.

So no, FFXI wasn't really that high for its time. It was about average.

Edited, Jul 13th 2010 1:06pm 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.
#23 Jul 13 2010 at 11:09 AM Rating: Default
*
134 posts
Graphics are important to me and tbh, I think FFXI graphics look fine. ****, some places even look beautiful and some mobs look cool.
#24 Jul 13 2010 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
Yogtheterrible wrote:
The only people who are complaining about PC requirements are 1) people who spent a boat load on a gaming laptop two years ago and are now upset that it wont work with new games (generally people who buy based on product name), 2) people with ancient desktops that should have been thrown in the trash years ago (probably FFXI players that scored a "impossible to gauge" on the FFXI benchmark and actually thought that mattered on any game newer than 5 years old) and 3) people that got conned into buying a piece of crap new computer (honestly? do you do no research at all before laying down a grand?). In all cases they are people so ignorant about computers I don't feel one bit sorry for them.


I respect your view. However, I take issue on your points. To lump everyone that has expressed concern over the requirements as ignorant is narrowminded and shortsighted. I'm sure, from reading between the lines, you have a custom built rig. That's great. Truly, it is. However, not everyone has the ability to be able to build one from the ground up. I want to build one myself using sticky on the forum. If you don't and have modified a mass marketed PC, great. But all this is besides the reason behind the original message - that the higher end PC requirements are and will restrict subscriber base.

Regardless of our differing opinions, the fact remains, if a game (speaking from a MMO perspective) requiring a monthly subscription, makes the entry to steep, then it will have a difficult time surviving. Then, while the "idiots" are funnelling their subscription fees elsewhere, FFXIV and the few players available are the victims of an over ambitious system requirement.

In the end, rather I play on my current PC, or play on the PS3, or build / purchase a new PC (my current is 6 months old) I still want to see a good sized population to interact with - which in the end is what MMO's are about - idiots and all.

There are some respectful disagrements that have been posted. All of them have good valid points. But, your post
remind me of the trolls on the "other MMO" site. Offending people who have concerns or are having a respectful discussion by calling them idiots reflects the medium age of the "other MMO Players" FF players seem to want to avoid.

Edited, Jul 13th 2010 1:58pm by CrazyClalf
#25 Jul 13 2010 at 12:06 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
I've noticed that the benchmark runs in either 1280x720 or 1920x1080. I wonder if they've considered adding (or if they plan to add) an 852x480 (16:9) or an 800x600 (4:3) resolution would make the game more playable on lower end systems. I plan on playing in 1280x1024, so I'm hoping that these aren't the ONLY resolution options we have.

If there -are- lower resolutions available, then turning your resolution down to the minimum would help out performance.
____________________________
[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.
#26 Jul 13 2010 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
53 posts
Maybe the requirement is not as bad as some people put it.

Most of us only run the benchmark and not the real game.

Remember with FFXI on PC, you can do all sort of adjustment with the registry to change resolution, view distance, and all sort of graphics tweaks.

We might able to tune down the graphics and those people with old desktop can effectively play a stripped down version of FF14.

It's going to suck when you know other people's game is prettier, but that's what you get if FF14 decide to use low graphics in the first place.
#27 Jul 13 2010 at 12:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
sarsha2 wrote:
Maybe the requirement is not as bad as some people put it.

Most of us only run the benchmark and not the real game.

Remember with FFXI on PC, you can do all sort of adjustment with the registry to change resolution, view distance, and all sort of graphics tweaks.

We might able to tune down the graphics and those people with old desktop can effectively play a stripped down version of FF14.

It's going to suck when you know other people's game is prettier, but that's what you get if FF14 decide to use low graphics in the first place.


This is what I'm hoping for to be honest - the same tweaking ability FFXI had (although I didn't like having to edit the registry). We'll see in a few months and I'm sure more and more information will be available. Being able to adjust video (graphic) settings, will allow the top-end rig still melt eyes and hearts while still allowing other, more unfortunate, players still get to experience FFXIV.
#28 Jul 13 2010 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
Sage
*
78 posts
Well how I see it is, right now the game is new, still on development and surely will get nice updates in the future. If they did things right, they didn't restrict themselves too much so they can add a lot of new content if they want to.

:P But right now we get a game with basic things that will become more complex with time, FFXI didn't have so many classes when it started, they added it all with time, synergy system and a lot more...

<< it is ok if right now FF14 doesn't interest you as much, but doesn't mean it will be like that forever :)

As for graphics, it is only obvious that they try to use the best graphics engine they can now, there is no point in making a low graphics games when so many new technologies are coming out. In some years I am sure that buying a new PC that can run FF14 at max, won't be as expensive as now, and those people will probably deal with the same problem we are dealing now, having to upgrade our PCs to play some new game that has the best graphics in the market :P

=/ As for Gilsellers, every successful game company has problems like this, and they try and keep trying to fight them, the thing is, what is the best method to eradicate them without affecting the gameplay, economy, and players interest.

Get rid of crafting, that will turn the game in a massive grindage = fail
Complex battle system that prevents from botting = might work for a while until they figure out a way around it
Anti-bot check/monster = same as before

And I cant think of any other method being used right now in other games, it is sad and true, they exist, they suck, they destroy the economy. I do hope FF14 has a good GM team focused in getting rid of any Gilseller on sight, no second thoughts, or chances, ban their account and move on to the next one... because to me, that is the only way to truly get rid of them, even if temporarily.
#29 Jul 13 2010 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
**
394 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
The CPU, Video, adn RAM requirements for XI were about average for where they should have been, compared to their competition. The HD requirement was a bit high for its time, but WoW outdid it in terms of requirements in the RAM and HD fields.

So no, FFXI wasn't really that high for its time. It was about average.


Wait a minute, did you even read the specs you posted? FFXI was looking for a GeForce FX (5)/Radeon 9000. Even games being released years after that would get by on a GeForce 3 or a Radeon 7500. That is quite a big difference there. I know we all say that XI relied more on CPU than GPU, but you still needed a pretty robust graphics card for the time. Most people were not running an FX or equivalent until about 2005.
#30 Jul 13 2010 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
5,587 posts
Yogtheterrible wrote:
The only people who are complaining about PC requirements are 1) people who spent a boat load on a gaming laptop two years ago and are now upset that it wont work with new games (generally people who buy based on product name), 2) people with ancient desktops that should have been thrown in the trash years ago (probably FFXI players that scored a "impossible to gauge" on the FFXI benchmark and actually thought that mattered on any game newer than 5 years old) and 3) people that got conned into buying a piece of crap new computer (honestly? do you do no research at all before laying down a grand?). In all cases they are people so ignorant about computers I don't feel one bit sorry for them.
Put me down for #1. Although I don't know where you get the idea anyone who buys a gaming laptop has any sort of brand loyalty. I bought it for the portability and being able to play anywhere in my house. What exactly does that have to do with computer ignorance?
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#31 Jul 13 2010 at 1:19 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
TraumaFox wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
The CPU, Video, adn RAM requirements for XI were about average for where they should have been, compared to their competition. The HD requirement was a bit high for its time, but WoW outdid it in terms of requirements in the RAM and HD fields.

So no, FFXI wasn't really that high for its time. It was about average.


Wait a minute, did you even read the specs you posted? FFXI was looking for a GeForce FX (5)/Radeon 9000. Even games being released years after that would get by on a GeForce 3 or a Radeon 7500. That is quite a big difference there. I know we all say that XI relied more on CPU than GPU, but you still needed a pretty robust graphics card for the time. Most people were not running an FX or equivalent until about 2005.


The FX was "Recommended", not minimum. Minimum was just listed as "GeForce or Radeon 9000 with 32 MB of RAM". The Radeon 9000 was almost two years old by that point.

Counterpoint: The minimum requirements for XIV are a dual core and a 9600. I would hardly recommend either of those though.

I do see your point, however. I anticipate the "Recommended requirements" of XIV to be significantly higher than the minimum ones.
____________________________
[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.
#32 Jul 13 2010 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
I've noticed that the benchmark runs in either 1280x720 or 1920x1080. I wonder if they've considered adding (or if they plan to add) an 852x480 (16:9) or an 800x600 (4:3) resolution would make the game more playable on lower end systems. I plan on playing in 1280x1024, so I'm hoping that these aren't the ONLY resolution options we have.


Or for that matter, how about 1440x900?

You know, the native resolution of many LCD monitors?
#33 Jul 13 2010 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
CrazyClalf wrote:
But all this is besides the reason behind the original message - that the higher end PC requirements are and will restrict subscriber base.


I disagree, and this is the main point of my previous post, though, wasn't plainly stated. There aren't as many people who will be unable to play the game due to a lack of computing power as these forums would suggest, being so full of people complaining about it. FFXIV will have no shortage of players so don't worry about that.

I do admit that I worded my previous post rather...harshly due to the influx of computer posts when there's a sticky and catch all threads dedicated to the subject and though I didn't say "generally" but once I didn't mean to lump everyone into those categories. Of course there will be exceptions.


Harri wrote:
Put me down for #1. Although I don't know where you get the idea anyone who buys a gaming laptop has any sort of brand loyalty. I bought it for the portability and being able to play anywhere in my house. What exactly does that have to do with computer ignorance?


I did say generally on this one...and I'm not talking about brand loyalty...more like brand envy that lead to a waste of money. There are tons of people here complaining about their alienware laptops who obviously have no clue that laptops don't last nearly as long as desktops and are upset about it. Anyone who knows anything about computers knows that alienware is way overpriced as you're basically paying for the brand name and the case. If you don't fit that category than you are not an idiot.
#34 Jul 13 2010 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
CrazyClalf wrote:
But all this is besides the reason behind the original message - that the higher end PC requirements are and will restrict subscriber base.


I disagree, and this is the main point of my previous post, though, wasn't plainly stated. There aren't as many people who will be unable to play the game due to a lack of computing power as these forums would suggest, being so full of people complaining about it. FFXIV will have no shortage of players so don't worry about that.

I do admit that I worded my previous post rather...harshly due to the influx of computer posts when there's a sticky and catch all threads dedicated to the subject and though I didn't say "generally" but once I didn't mean to lump everyone into those categories. Of course there will be exceptions.


Harri wrote:
Put me down for #1. Although I don't know where you get the idea anyone who buys a gaming laptop has any sort of brand loyalty. I bought it for the portability and being able to play anywhere in my house. What exactly does that have to do with computer ignorance?


I did say generally on this one...and I'm not talking about brand loyalty...more like brand envy that lead to a waste of money. There are tons of people here complaining about their alienware laptops who obviously have no clue that laptops don't last nearly as long as desktops and are upset about it. Anyone who knows anything about computers knows that alienware is way overpriced as you're basically paying for the brand name and the case. If you don't fit that category than you are not an idiot.
#35 Jul 13 2010 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
53 posts
I believe another reason they need to max graphics is PS3.

Like FFXI they keep saying we can't upgrade the graphics to PC because PS2 users will be ****** off.

Imagine they will say the same thing for PS3. They need to push it all the way because it's unlikely that they will do PC graphics update in the future and **** off PS3 users?

Actually, I am happy that they make the game in such a way that they have problem fitting into PS3 (RAM issue?).
This means that the PC player base is their top priority.

If the PS3 is their main focus, they would have designed the game to fit on PS3 right from the beginning.
#36 Jul 13 2010 at 10:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
398 posts
hehe People>Gameplay>Grafics
#37 Jul 14 2010 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
**
394 posts
zurinadrg wrote:
hehe People>Gameplay>Grafics

Why not People = Gameplay = Graphics?

I understand that people with low end systems feel like SE is abandoning them, and these people want to believe that SE is going to suffer for neglecting them, but that's really not the case. SE is doing what any major game developer needs to do: trying to meet or exceed the standards established by current competition. Remember that SE is not a driving force in the PC gaming world, and if they want to make waves with MMO players (especially those who were put off by XI), they need to show that they know what they're doing and can offer just as good as if not a better experience than what PC gamers are used to. Toning down graphics for low-end consumers isn't going to pull that off. Making a game with great graphics isn't a bad business decision when all you're asking for is mid-range hardware. It's a bad business decision when you make a game like Crysis that requires space alien technology.

Let's be honest here, this is Final Fantasy we're talking about. And an officially numbered one, too. Final Fantasy is supposed to have the best graphics ever and push systems to their limits. This is the first time I've ever heard people complain about a Final Fantasy looking too good. Would we really be satisfied with FFXIV if it only looked mediocre? If SE watered down the graphics so you could play on a low-end system, and then I gave you a high-end system to play with, would you still be satisfied with those watered-down graphics, or would you wish FFXIV could take better advantage of your system?

One last thing. People who are saying that SE is going to "lose subscribers" who can't afford or don't want to upgrade their systems to play FFXIV are wrong. SE is not going to lose these subscribers, they're just going to get them later, when this generation's hardware becomes more affordable for those people. It's not like these people don't want to play FFXIV, they just can't, and if there's anyone spiteful enough to never play FFXIV just because of how upset they are over the system requirements now, they probably weren't that interested in playing anyway.
#38 Jul 14 2010 at 9:25 AM Rating: Good
**
782 posts
Quote:
As a consumer stand point, I agree with you, SE could have lower the graphic a little bit so more mid range people can play the game without any upgrade.


From a consumer stand point I agree with SE, why should my system (which is already over a year old) go underutilized so that some people can stick with their incredibly outdated sh*t?

Edited, Jul 14th 2010 10:25am by windexy


Edited, Jul 14th 2010 10:29am by windexy
#39 Jul 14 2010 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
76 posts
Well there is 2 main points to it all.

1.) The minimum requirements for FF XIV are not even high so I don't get the debate. I don't feel like looking up the exact requirements again but I'm pretty sure it was like 2ghz processor and 1.5gb ram, and a $50 video card. ummm ya I'm pretty sure anyone that bought there computer withing the last 5 years meet the minimum requirements, maybe not the video card, but for around $50 you can get the bare minimum video card needed. I built my computer 2 years ago and pull a 3103 on the benchmark. Thats with a e8500 core 2 duo cpu, Radeon 4850 HD graphics card and 4GB of cheap ram, I pay $1300 to build the entire thing 2 years ago, you could build the entire computer for like $600 now and put a 3103 benchmark so its really not that bad.

2.) You gotta remember the reason they are making final fantasy 14 and not (Final fantasy 11 expansion) is not because they just feel like wasting millions of dollars to rebuild an entire game. They are making FF14 because FF11 was made 8 years ago with old technology and they can't do the updates they want too, because the game is built on old tech that can't handle it. Obviously every MMO is pushing for a life of 10-20 years or more, and the only way to get that life out of it is to release with the max technology requirments they can, because think of how fast this game or any mmo will be behind in graphics in 1-2 years if they just use low end tech. It's not a normal game that comes out and you play for a month and then your done with it forever. It's gotta be all pretty pretty for the next 10-20 years for the new customers that come into the market as well.

Save the (I don't care about graphics, I just care about the game play speech) cause alot of us feel that way, but theres a ton of people that actually just care that the game is pretty. especially new customers, there gonna look at screen shots of games and 90% of there decision to buy a game is based on those screen shots as sad as it is.

Final Note: the minimum requirements are not high, just need a real video card since most store bought computers have crap video cards in them, and you will get to play the game with low settings. Then 2-3 years from now when you buy a new computer, you get the enjoyment of playing ff14 on high settings, so it's like the game got a whole new upgrade visually for you and you only, so it's actually a good thing =)
#40 Jul 14 2010 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
53 posts
Surely gameplay > graphics.

However, good graphics enhances gameplay. It makes you feel like becoming part of the environment and therefore more connected to it.

Also, while some are putoff due to old computer, some new people will join because of good graphics.

It's like an iphone you show it to your friends and it looks cool, and next day they want one.

"Dude, I am playing this game FF14 with 3 monitors, 270 degrees viewing angle, and in 3D. My new card running 1920x1080 at 60 fps and the graphics is insane~~"
#41 Jul 14 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
*
209 posts
Quote:
think of how fast this game or any mmo will be behind in graphics in 1-2 years if they just use low end tech.
Reguardless of what they do for graphics today in 2 years time FFXIV graphics will be dated. Its only a directx 9 game and there is only so much you can do with directx 9.
#42 Jul 14 2010 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Graphics and gameplay are equally important in my book. If one isn't up to par chances are I wont play the game. Of course, retro games are the exception because you have the added benefit of nostalgia taking the place of graphics.
#43 Jul 14 2010 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
think of how fast this game or any mmo will be behind in graphics in 1-2 years if they just use low end tech.
Reguardless of what they do for graphics today in 2 years time FFXIV graphics will be dated. Its only a directx 9 game and there is only so much you can do with directx 9.
This. Anyone having the requirements they are asking for should be able to run DirectX 10 at least. If SE is so on the bleeding edge of technology, why did they design the game around an architecture two generations old? Never mind that it's only running at 32-bit. If you are telling people to have relatively recent up to date technology in order to play the game, why aren't they doing the same in the game design?
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#44 Jul 14 2010 at 3:53 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
This. Anyone having the requirements they are asking for should be able to run DirectX 10 at least. If SE is so on the bleeding edge of technology, why did they design the game around an architecture two generations old? Never mind that it's only running at 32-bit. If you are telling people to have relatively recent up to date technology in order to play the game, why aren't they doing the same in the game design?


I bet they made it directx 9 so people still on XP can play the game. At least 50% of Steam users use windows XP still. If you ever played BF:BC on directx 9 and then switched to directx 10 you would see a night and day difference. Next year we should start seeing a lot more Directx 11 games and they look even better then Directx 10. Just like I said in 2 years time FFXIV graphics will be dated!
#45 Jul 14 2010 at 4:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
76 posts
I thought I read somewhere that FF14 will be directx 11 in the near future, but atm it is exclusively directx 9, and i'm sure they started with only worrying about directx 9 for release because of the shear number of people that still use xp, not to mention alot of video cards that will work with ff14 are not directx 10 compatiable let alone directx 11

Edited, Jul 14th 2010 6:53pm by Diggtown
#46 Jul 14 2010 at 4:55 PM Rating: Good
Diggtown wrote:
I thought I read somewhere that FF14 will be directx 11 in the near future, but atm it is exclusively directx 9, and i'm sure they started with only worrying about directx 9 for release because of the shear number of people that still use xp, not to mention alot of video cards that will work with ff14 are not directx 10 compatiable let alone directx 11

Edited, Jul 14th 2010 6:53pm by Diggtown



I remember reading something about DX10/11 for XIV somewhere too... can't remember where now though.
#47 Jul 14 2010 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
291 posts
Diggtown wrote:
Well there is 2 main points to it all.

1.) The minimum requirements for FF XIV are not even high so I don't get the debate. I don't feel like looking up the exact requirements again but I'm pretty sure it was like 2ghz processor and 1.5gb ram, and a $50 video card. ummm ya I'm pretty sure anyone that bought there computer withing the last 5 years meet the minimum requirements, maybe not the video card, but for around $50 you can get the bare minimum video card needed. I built my computer 2 years ago and pull a 3103 on the benchmark. Thats with a e8500 core 2 duo cpu, Radeon 4850 HD graphics card and 4GB of cheap ram, I pay $1300 to build the entire thing 2 years ago, you could build the entire computer for like $600 now and put a 3103 benchmark so its really not that bad.


I'm not saying FFXIV's system requirement is too high or what, but I just can't agree with you on the $50 video card is the minimum requirement. As for today, the cheapest Radeon HD 4850 with 512mb is about $90...
#48 Jul 14 2010 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
I remember reading something about DX10/11 for XIV somewhere too...
I hope your right it will be a huge improvement over DX9.
#49 Jul 14 2010 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
**
749 posts
Quote:
If SE is so on the bleeding edge of technology, why did they design the game around an architecture two generations old?


Because the PS3 only supports DX9? SE limited the PC version of FFXI to be no greater than the PS2 version, and I see no reason to believe they won't do the exact same thing again. They do this so they only have to program the thing once.

That said, I strongly suspect that FFXIV will not be anywhere near as system intensive as the benchmark suggests. Granted, that's an abolute GUESS on my part, but it seems logical enough. Only time will tell.
____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#50 Jul 14 2010 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
I remember reading something about DX10/11 for XIV somewhere too...
I hope your right it will be a huge improvement over DX9.


So here's what I found. I knew I made that interview compilation thread for a reason Smiley: grin

Quote:
The Specs

Right now, the game is being developed with DirectX 9 in mind. They looked into DirectX 10 and the machines currently available on the market as well. In the end, they decided that DirectX 9 was the best choice. Tanaka says they will also work on how to incorporate new technology in the future. Expect that you will need a computer on the high end of the current market to play FFXIV. They were told the specs for FFXI were too high when that game was released 7 years ago but look at the situation now. They have to design a game that will age gracefully. They also have to guess at what things will be like when the game is released in 2010. People will be switching from Windows Vista to Windows 7. There are people who will go from a 32bit system to a 64bit one. Tanaka also says device drivers can lead to different problems they have to try to foresee as well. They are also planning to support a wide variety of possibilities. For example, this time expect support for 64bit and multicore systems. Information on what that means exactly, for example, how much FFXIV will take advantage of such systems, is not available at this time. However, things will be different from FFXI. FFXI was made for consoles and ported to Windows. For FFXIV, it’s made with Windows in mind and then they’ll make adjustments as needed for any console systems.
#51 Jul 14 2010 at 5:08 PM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
Quote:
Because the PS3 only supports DX9?
IDK how true that is but the fact is when you limit your self to programming for a console. Your also limiting yourself on future upgrades for the game. That is the reason why you haven't seen a graphical overhaul for FFXI. The PS2 would choke and die! Every mmorpg in history that has been around for a long time has upgraded its graphics, all except FFXI. The same will probably be true for FFXIV!
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 13 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (13)