Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Maybe I'm being unreasonable here, but I have been finding the minimum system requirements for many recent games really pushing the envelope for wide use (and PURCHASE). I wouldn't blame them for cutting the G3 loose, but I would think supporting the Digital Audio Powermac and up would be a concern for them, perhaps? Like, there are a lot of Macs of this speed and onwards up there, and that Mac was released in early 2001. That's not that long ago... is it?? Basically, you're okay (for now) if you run a Quicksilver Powermac or any eMac or G4 iMac. But even so, how much life is left in these prolific models??

Although I won't account for the graphic card requirements (higher requirements on that should be fair game), check out some minimum system reqs (I take any G3 compatibility with these particular titles with a hefty grain of salt):

Wolverine's Revenge: G4/733, 256MB RAM

Wakeboarding unleashed: G4/700, 256MB RAM, 580MB drive space!

Tony Hawk 4: G4/733, 700MB drive!. I do play the demo for this game on my G4/450/2GB/ATO Radeon 9000 Pro, albeit with fairly minimal settings.

Splinter Cel: G4/733 1.5GB of drive space!!! :eek:

Rainbow 6 "Raven Shield": G3/4/5/733MHz, 1.9GB drive

Tiger Woods 2003: G3/350 -- but the demo runs like hell on my G4/450.

Lord of The Rings: G4/800, 2GB drive (no bold text there... because I'm getting numbed by this high spec :rolleyes: )

Jedi Academy: G3/500! :eek: That's very surprising, given how nice the game plays -- most of the time. On my G4/450, things jittery once in a while. And sometimes your character goes just nuts when in battle. Could be me, though. If you're a Star Wars fan, this game rocks! BUY IT! I did :D ( demo available )

Star Trek Elite Force II: G3/4/5/733MHz

Spy Hunter: G3/600 (Mac Addict found this spec optimistic).

Return To Castle Wolfenstein: a modest G3/500 -- and a Radeon card. I only list this one to say that I found the game-play and graphics to be really nice on my Sawtooth.

Nascar 2003: G4/733 -- but is dual processor savvy, and they say a dual dual G4/500 would be fine
Same specs for Nascar 2002.

Medal of Honor "Breakthrough" Pack: G3/733 (G4/1GHz recommended). I run the MoH Spearhead demo oooookay on my Mac.

Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness: 1GHz G4! (or 733Mhz or faster PowerPC with ATI Radeon 8500 or nVidia GeForce 3 and faster).

Kelly Slater Pro Surfer: G4/700.

Indiana Jones: G4/800 (kinda runs so-so on my Sawtooth. The demo has some screwy mouse sensitivity, though :mad: )

The Harry Potter games: G3/350 (buggy and artifact'd quality on my system)

Command & Conquer: G4/1GHz

Call Of Duty: G3/700.

Bloodrayne: G4/733 (Mac Addict said this was a demanding game)

Halo: G4/800 (1GHz G4 and Radeon 9000 recommended)

Unreal Tournament 2003: G4/700 (except 12" PowerBook manufactured in 2003... Halo must like a L3 cache -- but it won't run on a Mac sold only LAST YEAR?!), 3GB hard disk space!!


No One Lives Forever II: G4/700

Alien vs. Predator II: G4/700

Nanosaur II: G4/700

So... as far as the Mac gaming industry is concerned, if you don't have the last G4/733 Digital Audio or newer, fuhgeddaboudit


(hey, that aint too shabby a list of Mac games! And that's only the heavy CPU hitters!)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
It irks me that a laptop i bought 6 months ago for $2500 can't play Unreal 2003, or Command and Conquer. I know it's a laptop, but COME ON!

My two favourite games, and no dice.

Has anyone ever tried Sim City 4 on a 12PB? I would imagine if i would be able to get it to run, the 12" screen would be a problem.

:mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
...and this, my friends, is why we have PS2, Gamecube and Xbox.

Use your mid-level G4's for work, use your sub-$300 consoles for games.

'nuff said.

:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Do you guys realize that 21 of the 24 games you listed are/were either:

a) Out already for consoles WAAAAY before the MacOS version
b) Are due out in the next few months (Call of Duty, UT2003) for the majority of consoles...

There are features that make a lot of these games actually more preferable to playing on a console anyway - i.e. Rainbow Six 3's AWESOME XBLive/PSOnline component and Halo's GODLY lack of problems with the high horsepower requirements - buttery smooth FPS throughout...

...and that's not even going NEAR the hideous lack of quality RPG's on MacOS (exceptions: Diablo series and Dungeon Siege)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,354 Posts
I think that it's been mentioned many times before, the best systems to play games on, between Macs and consoles, are on Macs.

As for the game requirements, they are getting a bit high up there. This may be one problem that game developers themselves are contributing to, they're bringing out games that can only be run by a large minority of an already small small segment of the overall computing market.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Use your mid-level G4's for work, use your sub-$300 consoles for games.
And watch the Mac gaming platform disappear. If only users of recent Macs should be using Macs for gaming, there would be far from enough users to support this shaky industry.

What the Mac gaming companies should bloody well do is get on the stick with multi-processor support! then you can get those older duallies -- and the wallet carrying owners of said duallies -- into the game. Leave Mac gaming to the high-end only, and it will die.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,579 Posts
G4s have been lagging in speed a bit, so not too surprising. Games are not necessarily the best thing to take advantage of L3 cache or Altivec; correct me if I'm wrong.
One of the things I like about owning a PowerBook, instead what I used to own - a self-made PC, is that I am no longer tempted to upgrade my video card every 8 months.
As an embedded software developer myself, I am somewhat biased, but I believe consoles will take over high-end gaming. Steve Jobs has said that the TV is where you go when you don't want to think (read: you want to escape reality), and the PC is where you go when you do want to think, create, learn, etc. He uses this argument to justify not building a Media PC, but I think it speaks to this gaming issue as well.
Future consoles will use many processors, perhaps many multi-core processors. Console makers worry only about one type of performance, they have almost no compatibility issues to work out, and they can have their own OS. They don't have to release new hardware every few months. Sony's spending millions (billions?) to develop new chips just for gaming. The times they are a changing.
Go to Game.Ars and read the 2/5/2003 edition where they talk about the "rise of the console".
One more thing. There is a chance for PCs (Macs included) to regain their hardcore gamer status. Someone must innovate to create a game that is different in some way, that does something consoles can't do very well. Something where the higher video resolution is really important, for example, or where you need huge quantities of hard disk space. Or something else I haven't thought of ...
By the way, I finished the Halo Campaign on Normal difficulty yesssssterday. :D
 

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
I see you mentioned how much hard drive space these games take up - but if you consider the average Mac user has a 60 GB or bigger hard drive, I don't think that should be a very big concern to us.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
i would much prefer to play games on my mac but it would be too damn expensive to keep up with system requirements.

i did as troutmagnet said, and kept my macs for work and bought an xbox. the only thing that sucks about consoles is the controllers. somebody should market a mouse keyboard combo that can be programmed and used with consoles.

i'm playing on a new 27" flat screen tv so that doesn't bother me so much - i thought i would miss the monitor.

btw, Vice City rocks!
 

·
Resident Curmudgeon
Joined
·
86,945 Posts
I have Tiger Woods 2003 and play it on both my eMac G4 700Mhz and my Al Powerbook 1 Ghz.

My son has the 2004 version for PS2 and even he prefers it on the Mac. He says the Mac graphics are awesome compared to the PS2.

For the record, I emailed Aspyr to enquire when the 2004 version for the Mac would be released. Their reply was that they are not even sure they will make one for the Mac. Darn!

Cheers

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
real time strategy games are better on computers. you would need a controller with 40 buttons to make up what is lost without the keyboard mouse combo.

i remember homeworld was pretty awesome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
the reason why counter strike is soo cool still is that you don't need a top notch machine to play it on,

too bad they never brought out counter strike for mac
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,579 Posts
real time strategy games are better on computers. you would need a controller with 40 buttons to make up what is lost without the keyboard mouse combo.
So it makes sense that Blizzard already releases everything on Mac and Windows simultaneously and only later on the console
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,700 Posts
Let me say this, gaming on the Mac is extremely important! The question to be asked is, who is switching to the Mac? 40-something Moms and Dads? No! It's the teens in the family who are influencing home computer purchases. Yes these kids have consoles, but they also want to play games on their computer. I can just hear it now, "Mom, Dad, I think we need a new computer. Okay kid. Let's go shopping ... (speaking with surprisingly knowledgeable Future Shop sales person) ... and so you can see, the Mac really is the correct choice for your wants and needs. (junior chirps in) What games are available to play on the Mac? (Followed by complete silence, salesperson quietly mentions) There aren't any games for the Mac. Guess what computer the family buys after junior's question.

And that "You wanna play games? Use a console." argument doesn't wash. Has anyone tried playing Unreal Tournament on a PS2 vs a Mac? It outright sucks! There is no comparison between console and PC gaming (where PC games ported to consoles are concerned). There are some games that just need a mouse and a keyboard, which joysticks cannot suffice.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,070 Posts
Hello,

There are lots of games on the Mac that are very good and do not need a high-end machine: you just need to look for them. I have a G3700 iBook, which is almost an antique now, but I use it for games all the time. I've been playing way too much Diablo II lately.

James
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,788 Posts
I've played some pretty cool games on older macs, like Unreal, Quake, Tomb Raider III, Bugdom, Nanosaur, etc....

I am amazed that game manufacturers are building games specifically for high end macs, when alot of gamers probably use lower end machines. I think that for the most part people would be happy to sacrifice some of the graphic enhancements for better playability. I know in OSX I turn all my game options to minimal just to get most of thes games to play!
 

·
Vorlon Ambassador
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
I think the problem is as Elmer said, the G4 was lacking in speed, and only now is the G5 making up for that (assuming Apple gets a speedbump G5 soon - I'm still waiting for this speedbump). Apple tried to make up for that lack in speed by creating dual machines, but unfortunately game developers don't code for duals it seems - of course this could be due to the fact that most games are ported over from the PC and duals aren't popular on the PC platform. If there isn't support for dual processors in the code before you port the game, it makes it very difficult probably to add it, making it unlikely to be added.

Of course if you believe all the rumors on the G5 lately, the G5 will eventually be faster than Intel's chips and we won't have a problem in a couple of years.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Yup. The kids are the way to expand marketshare. They're the ones who grow into adults making business decisions and platform choices on a larger scale.

But for now, Garageband + healthy Mac game market + G5 iMacs at a good price = expanding marketshare...

See ya in 2005. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
Certainly over the past year or so, the Game requirements have jumped. My G4/450 was adequate up until about a year or so ago for just about any game that came out. now, not so capable.

part of the problem lies in which games get ported. basically, top selling PC games which have requirements that far surpass any Mac built before the turn of the century.

Right now, the Mac gaming market is at a new level. Where the new machines such as the G5, will be adequate for quite some time to come. Even PC games are not pushing the limits anymore. But older machines are not going to cut it for many of these titles.

Who here has anything older than an iMac as their main system? Not a huge number. People often have either an iMac and newer. In time, most will have upgraded again. We are at the beginning of that cycle.

It's not unreasonable to expect to get upwards of 5 years before games that come out for the Mac eclipse your system. And with teh sluggish improvement the G4 (and G3) have suffered over the past 5 years, we've been lagging behind in raw horsepower for quite a while.

The G5 systems are the beginning of the next 'phase' of this push to better and faster technology. given another year or two, and we'll be seeing most systems eclipsing the Game Requirements again.

:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Like all things in the computer world, games are advancing in complexity and structure. In order to provide the next level of entertainment which by the way keeps slipping into future, game developers are required to keep pushing the limits. I remember not long ago, people cried that the mac game situation sucked. Now that we have seen some improvements, shouldnt we applaud and support these efforts?
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top