🚀 go-pugleaf

This is interesting:

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy

For those of you that think you are not going to have the hardware that you
need to play DOOM 3, the fact of the matter is that many of you will be just
fine, although an upgrade may still be in your future. As of this afternoon
we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440
video card and having a surprisingly good gaming experience. Even a subtle
jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce 3 video card that is two years old will
deliver a solid gaming experience that will let you enjoy the game the way
id Software designed it to be. That fact alone should let many of you know
that you will not be left behind in experiencing DOOM 3.

I have an AMD k6-2+ 450MHz and a Diamond Viper 330. I don't think DOOM
3 will work.

Paul


On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:42:06 GMT, "David"
<hsternak@nospamyahooxxx.com> wrote:

>This is interesting:
>
>http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
>
>For those of you that think you are not going to have the hardware that you
>need to play DOOM 3, the fact of the matter is that many of you will be just
>fine, although an upgrade may still be in your future. As of this afternoon
>we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440
>video card and having a surprisingly good gaming experience. Even a subtle
>jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce 3 video card that is two years old will
>deliver a solid gaming experience that will let you enjoy the game the way
>id Software designed it to be. That fact alone should let many of you know
>that you will not be left behind in experiencing DOOM 3.
>

>Even a subtle
>jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce 3 video card that is two years old

Ive found these inteviews quite misleading tbh, fact of the matter is, I
think most people have untill recently at least, just been upgrading gfx
cards, I think something like 85% of the online community is on pre 1(.3)Gz
and probably quite a large portion of the gaming comunity is on slower CPU's
with high-end gfx cards. It remains to be seen whether D3 can manage gather
interest in the form of online performance (the be all and end all in gaming
since Quake 2/halflife) otherwise i fear, I, like a huge portion of the
gaming community will be picking it up from the bargin bucket in a few years
time. I dont feel ID has put enough effort into stimulating mod community
interest for it to be as much of a 'hit' as it deserves.
On the other hand, its such promising technology with so many other large
companies licensing the engine that ID is onto a winner whatever happens.

"mark parker" <markj.parker@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xSvUc.370$A_6.165@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> Ive found these inteviews quite misleading tbh, fact of the matter is, I
> think most people have untill recently at least, just been upgrading gfx
> cards, I think something like 85% of the online community is on pre
1(.3)Gz
> and probably quite a large portion of the gaming comunity is on slower
CPU's
> with high-end gfx cards. It remains to be seen whether D3 can manage
gather
> interest in the form of online performance (the be all and end all in
gaming
> since Quake 2/halflife) otherwise i fear, I, like a huge portion of the
> gaming community will be picking it up from the bargin bucket in a few
years
> time. I dont feel ID has put enough effort into stimulating mod community
> interest for it to be as much of a 'hit' as it deserves.
> On the other hand, its such promising technology with so many other large
> companies licensing the engine that ID is onto a winner whatever happens.

I think game companies have really left the average computer owner behind in
terms of minimum specifications. People were starting to say it in earnest a
few years ago, but now it's even more true: how much computing power do I
really need to surf the web, do word processing, send email, or other
routine computing tasks? For many people, something like my old Athlon 650
(with a first generation DDR GeForce) is perfectly adequate, even though in
the past I was always very sensitive to slow computer performance. While the
2GHz PCs at work are a bit faster than my home PC, the difference is
actually rather subtle, and I'm not sure if I'd even be aware of the
difference between them and a 3GHz PC for routine activities. Hence, I have
little incentive, other than being able to play the latest games, to upgrade
or replace my system (and dividing the cost by the number of years before
the next replacement or upgrade makes the economizer in me flinch at the
idea). Computer performance used to feel woefully inadequate just months
after purchase, no matter how high-end the machine was, but now even
dramatic paper gains translate into rather mundane real-world differences
(except in computer games).

In the past, computer games may have been among the vanguards, but even web
surfing and word processing had noticeable gains from faster computers. Now,
other than playing HD video streams or creative tasks like music production
or animation, computer games are in a class of their own in terms of system
requirements. They end up being the only reason to upgrade or replace a
computer, which is difficult to justify. While in the past many people were
buying computers for the first time, and many more had plenty of reasons to
upgrade besides just games, I wonder if the number of new users and
upgraders might start dropping, pulling the rug out form under the demand
for the most demanding computer games.