PDA

View Full Version : You're not going to like this...(C&C Generals)


AppleMatt
Mar 31, 2004, 03:09 PM
I'm aware there's a currently active Generals specs thread, but I think this demands a new one;

http://www.insidemacgames.com/previews/view.php?ID=148

Apparently, with everything on low on a 1.25GHz PowerBook Generals didn't run well. At all. Aspyr said "if your system doesn't meet the specs, don't even bother"

:( I love Mac gaming

AppleMatt

job
Mar 31, 2004, 05:20 PM
Remember, this game, when initially released, also ran slowly on decent PC hardware.

It isn't a shoddy port or anything. It's just a very demanding game, just like Bungie's Halo.

Gymnut
Mar 31, 2004, 05:35 PM
Well that is a bit disheartening to hear although I'm curious as to how it will fare with desktop processors, more ram and a faster video card.

benpatient
Mar 31, 2004, 08:24 PM
runs fine full blast on my barely 700 dollar PC...

that is almost a year old, now...

AppleMatt
Mar 31, 2004, 08:47 PM
I think what we need now is;

- Apple to release 10.4 with massive OpenGL and graphics improvements.
- ATi and nVidia to take driver-writing seriously (especially nVidia).
- Aspyr to announce an immediate update with massive performance gains.
- Ryan Gordon to show Aspyr how to write a real performance gains update.
- Supermarkets offering free RAM upgrades as incentives to buy their tea-bags.
- A miracle.

Simple really, when you break it down :)
To be fair though, when you look at the videos of the game (lower quality ones on Apple's site are quicker to download), it looks very very impressive.

AppleMatt

crazzyeddie
Mar 31, 2004, 09:15 PM
Don't leave stuff out when criticizing something, especially when its stated only 1 sentence later...

Note that this is a beta, and Iím told that subsequent builds have brought performance improvements.

Funkatation
Mar 31, 2004, 09:33 PM
It forces 800x600 play in multiplayer.. how lame.

AppleMatt
Mar 31, 2004, 10:24 PM
Don't leave stuff out when criticizing something, especially when its stated only 1 sentence later...

Two reasons I (consciously) didn't include that;
1. Aspyr directly said if your machine doesn't meet the requirements, don't bother. How often do developers say that?
2. How many times have we heard "performance has improved, will be improved, could be improved, might be improved, ok if these planets are in-line and you stand on your head there's a minute chance...". It hasn't been released yet, do you think they were going to say "no it runs like crap, I wouldn't buy it that's for sure"
(They've got quite an irony going on there)

Also, the specs were jumped at a v.late stage in the development cycle (after the beta was released).
Assuming they got a 25% performance increase (generous I know, but they might have), that means it'll be playable on a 1.25GHz PowerBook with everything on low when planes etc fly in. Which is...good...I suppose.
Meanwhile benpatient has got in running full-blast on his year old medium-spec PC.

It's not like I hid anything, the article was linked before my comments were made. If people are interested in C&C Generals the chances of them reading it are fairly high. Anyway, it's rude to tell people what to do. Let's wait until the 16th and see what happens.

AppleMatt

MrMacMan
Mar 31, 2004, 11:42 PM
Arg.

ARG.


AHHGGGG!


Damn them!


Bumped up the specs and laugh in my face!

Damn you Aspyr!!

oingoboingo
Apr 1, 2004, 02:02 AM
Remember, this game, when initially released, also ran slowly on decent PC hardware.

It isn't a shoddy port or anything. It's just a very demanding game, just like Bungie's Halo.

A friend of mine had an Athlon XP 2000+ system with a 256MB Radeon 9700 Pro...a fairly decent gaming system. He said that C&C Generals ran only at an 'average' level of performance on that system. He subsequently upgraded the motherboard and CPU to a 3.06GHz Pentium 4, and said the improvement in game fluidity was huge. He had the same graphics card. So it looks like C&C Generals is CPU limited, rather than GPU limited, even on its 'native' platform of x86/Windows.

This kind of thing had to happen sooner or later though...the G4s just aren't able to cut the mustard these days. Nothing as slow as a 1.25GHz G4 has been sold in the PC world for quite a while. Remember why we were all getting excited about the G5 last year...it was for a reason!

Rezet
Apr 1, 2004, 03:00 AM
I'm aware there's a currently active Generals specs thread, but I think this demands a new one;

http://www.insidemacgames.com/previews/view.php?ID=148

Apparently, with everything on low on a 1.25GHz PowerBook Generals didn't run well. At all. Aspyr said "if your system doesn't meet the specs, don't even bother"

:( I love Mac gaming

AppleMatt

me no care. me can run any game. :p :D

oingoboingo
Apr 1, 2004, 03:47 AM
me no care. me can run any game. :p :D

Since you dropped enough money on that dual 1.8 rig to buy about 20 Xboxes, I sincerely hope you can :)

Kelvin
Apr 1, 2004, 05:48 AM
I think what we need now is;

- Apple to release 10.4 with massive OpenGL and graphics improvements.
- ATi and nVidia to take driver-writing seriously (especially nVidia).

Actually 10.3 has massive OpenGL updates. Nothing revolutionary but 10.3 does bring OpenGL on the mac up to snuff in a lot of areas; namely PBuffers. Developers can now to fast, native render to texture and off screen rendering. There's also a lot of other improvements that I don't care to remember right now. Lots of bringing the OpenGL features down to carbon/cocoa interfaces too.

The ATi driver writers are cool. Jeremy Sandmel worked with me personally to fix a Radeon driver bug (and I'm an indie dev!). For anyone who is interested it's a texture rowlength bug that goes way back to the introduction of texture rectangles. For you developers, you can see it by setting your incoming texture data rowlength to > 8196bytes (actual texture size _must_ be < 8196bytes) e.g. a 3000px wide incoming buffer. In 10.3.3 and below you will see the bug. Jeremy submitted the fix for the next update, but missed the 10.3.3 deadline so you'll see it fixed in 10.3.4.

AppleMatt
Apr 1, 2004, 10:44 AM
Actually 10.3 has massive OpenGL updates. Nothing revolutionary but 10.3 does bring OpenGL on the mac up to snuff in a lot of areas; namely PBuffers. Developers can now to fast, native render to texture and off screen rendering. There's also a lot of other improvements that I don't care to remember right now. Lots of bringing the OpenGL features down to carbon/cocoa interfaces too.

Oh god yes, that was one of the main reasons I upgraded and also followed the 10.3.3 update so closely. Somewhere there's a thread about 10.3.3 improvements a few weeks in and I harped on about graphics improvements.

The ATi driver writers are cool. Jeremy Sandmel worked with me personally to fix a Radeon driver bug (and I'm an indie dev!). For anyone who is interested it's a texture rowlength bug that goes way back to the introduction of texture rectangles. For you developers, you can see it by setting your incoming texture data rowlength to > 8196bytes (actual texture size _must_ be < 8196bytes) e.g. a 3000px wide incoming buffer. In 10.3.3 and below you will see the bug. Jeremy submitted the fix for the next update, but missed the 10.3.3 deadline so you'll see it fixed in 10.3.4.

I've always been more fond of ATi drivers than nVidia simply because of what they managed to squeeze out of the Rage series. I was constantly amazed by the improvements the monthly updates (ahh back in the day!) brang.

Good work on the bug catch, btw ;)

AppleMatt

edit: Can't PM you. Do you have any info on other bugs/problems with the current OpenGL implementation?

yellow
Apr 8, 2004, 01:05 PM
Apparently, with everything on low on a 1.25GHz PowerBook Generals didn't run well. At all. Aspyr said "if your system doesn't meet the specs, don't even bother" The game was acceptable on low settings on an 867MHz Qwoosh. Naturally this is a Desktop vs. Laptop, but it was acceptable.

colocolo
Apr 8, 2004, 02:24 PM
Two reasons I (consciously) didn't include that;
1. Aspyr directly said if your machine doesn't meet the requirements, don't bother. How often do developers say that?

AppleMatt

My guess would be, every time you ask them directly(at least in Aspyr's case). I asked them a while ago if my iBook 600 w/8 Megs VRAM would run Ghost Recon, and their answer was a simple , 'the game won't run on anything less than 16 Megs of VRAM'.

Of course, this proved to be false.

I suppose they always stand by the requirements they publish, because if not it wouldnt make much sense to state them at all.

Doraemon
Apr 8, 2004, 02:39 PM
Tested the demo on my iBook G4.

It's playable (800x600, low details).

But I don't like the game, so I'm not going to buy it.

applekid
Apr 8, 2004, 02:41 PM
Uh, that preview was based on a beta version that IMG was able to play way before this demo was even released. Generals is currently Gold Master (some people somehow already got their copies), and it can be assumed what we see performance-wise in the demo is what's we're gonna get in the full version.

That news is old.

AppleMatt
Apr 8, 2004, 05:31 PM
Uh, that preview was based on a beta version that IMG was able to play way before this demo was even released. Generals is currently Gold Master (some people somehow already got their copies), and it can be assumed what we see performance-wise in the demo is what's we're gonna get in the full version.

That news is old.

I'm sure after posting that you realised the thread was started a day after the article was posted, way way before the demo was released ;)

AppleMatt

ExoticFish
Apr 8, 2004, 06:50 PM
i played the demo on my 12" PB and it ran fine on 1024x768 medium quality. played through the tutorial but i dunno, i've never been a CC fan.

applekid
Apr 9, 2004, 08:35 AM
I'm sure after posting that you realised the thread was started a day after the article was posted, way way before the demo was released ;)

AppleMatt

Darn people making old threads resurface. :D