Opinion: Do Mac gamers have low game performance standards?

[vraxtus]

My opinion: yes.

I think a lot of the Mac gamers that claim that performance is "fine," "acceptable," "playable," or "runs without a hitch," have some fairly low standards.

Seeing as how the new iMacs feature the Halo rates as only percentages, this only further convinces me of that fact. Even on my Rev B 12", I find War3 only barely acceptable... those others that claim it runs "fine" or "perfect" I think really don't game that much.

I guess I'm hoping that one day both Apple and Apple developers will get on the ball, and really push more for gaming on our machines... at least, for better performance. 18 FPS on some UT2K4 maps, with my Rad9800 Pro SE is NOT acceptable to me at all... *especially* having paid so much for it.

But I suppose my desires are as much of a pipe dream as those that think a Powerbook G5 will be out in 6 months :rolleyes:

[shortyjj]

From the front page of Inside Mac Games:


'While budget-minded Mac gamers have lots to be excited about in the G5 iMac machines, given the unprecedented power packed into the compact consumer computer, Mac gamers have further reasons to rejoice: Apple has bundled Pangea Software's Nanosaur 2 and GarageGames' Marble Blast Gold with every one of the new iMacs sold...'

Clearly, if this is what we have to be excited about, our standards must stay very low...

[takao]

My opinion: yes.

I think a lot of the Mac gamers that claim that performance is "fine," "acceptable," "playable," or "runs without a hitch," have some fairly low standards.

Seeing as how the new iMacs feature the Halo rates as only percentages, this only further convinces me of that fact. Even on my Rev B 12", I find War3 only barely acceptable... those others that claim it runs "fine" or "perfect" I think really don't game that much.

hm that might be.. i don't know for sure..because last time i played with my own hands on a mac was in the days where 133mhz powerpc chips where 'a real killer'

hm for me acceptable i mean 1024x768 resolution - medium features etc. and running relativly smooth.. with UT2004 (only tried the demo) i got around 25+ fps with itunes, icq , mozilla and outlook express on the background in onslaught modus against 12 bots or something..and i recognzied slow down some times ... i think 40 fps would be possible but it just run fine...(i'm the guy who rather turns down the details instead of resolution...)
haven't tried doom or a lot of newer games
but except UT2004 (onslaught... not deathmatch) i haven't come over to a game where i had to turn the resolution to the infamous 800x640 or or even to 640x480


I guess I'm hoping that one day both Apple and Apple developers will get on the ball, and really push more for gaming on our machines... at least, for better performance. 18 FPS on some UT2K4 maps, with my Rad9800 Pro SE is NOT acceptable to me at all... *especially* having paid so much for it.

But I suppose my desires are as much of a pipe dream as those that think a Powerbook G5 will be out in 6 months :rolleyes:

hmm at what resolution are you runing those maps...18 sounds indeed _very_ low for a radeon 9800 pro

[vraxtus]

hmm at what resolution are yo uruning thsoe maps...18 sounds indeed _very_ low for a radeon 9800 pro

1280x1024 high detail all across the board, on several Onslaught maps... and even a few CTF ones as well.

[bousozoku]

My opinion: yes.

I think a lot of the Mac gamers that claim that performance is "fine," "acceptable," "playable," or "runs without a hitch," have some fairly low standards.

Seeing as how the new iMacs feature the Halo rates as only percentages, this only further convinces me of that fact. Even on my Rev B 12", I find War3 only barely acceptable... those others that claim it runs "fine" or "perfect" I think really don't game that much.

I guess I'm hoping that one day both Apple and Apple developers will get on the ball, and really push more for gaming on our machines... at least, for better performance. 18 FPS on some UT2K4 maps, with my Rad9800 Pro SE is NOT acceptable to me at all... *especially* having paid so much for it.

But I suppose my desires are as much of a pipe dream as those that think a Powerbook G5 will be out in 6 months :rolleyes:

Considering that your machine is minimally-equipped with RAM, you're not well-equipped to speak for everyone. If you had 4 GB, or even 2, I'd think you would have a better idea.

I'm not saying that ported games work well on Macs--ports rarely work well on any machine. Sloppy code on x86 machines doesn't get better on Macs and there generally isn't enough raw power to ignore it. I find the performance of my dual G4/800 to be acceptable, but I'm not enthusiastic about it.

[vraxtus]

Considering that your machine is minimally-equipped with RAM, you're not well-equipped to speak for everyone. If you had 4 GB, or even 2, I'd think you would have a better idea.


Since when was a gig of RAM a minimal requirement?

[Jigglelicious]

Considering that your machine is minimally-equipped with RAM, you're not well-equipped to speak for everyone. If you had 4 GB, or even 2, I'd think you would have a better idea.

I'm not saying that ported games work well on Macs--ports rarely work well on any machine. Sloppy code on x86 machines doesn't get better on Macs and there generally isn't enough raw power to ignore it. I find the performance of my dual G4/800 to be acceptable, but I'm not enthusiastic about it.

RAM has very little to do with the actual raw performance you get in games. Sure, more RAM helps stop "texture thrashing" and other hitching related to not having enough memory where the game is forced to read data straight from the HDD at critical points instead of fast RAM. But once you have more RAM than the game uses, adding more will do absolutely nothing. And UT2k4 does NOT take up more than 1GB RAM.

[bousozoku]

Since when was a gig of RAM a minimal requirement?

Since Apple said that the machine required 512 MB. Obviously, 512 MB wasn't a recommended configuration and 1 GB is hardly much more, especially for playing games, such as UT2004, which are processor-intensive.

[takao]

Since when was a gig of RAM a minimal requirement?

hehe i still remeber the days when i got my computer in sept. 02...i wonder how often i heard the sentence "you have one GB of ram ????" from other users ... i only know one person who has 1 GB too ...

i haven't noticed any problems with age of mythology and warcraft 3 either (on the same resolution as before)
perhaps the performance break down gets suddenly bigger with the next resolution over 1024x768...you never know ;)
have you checked for anti-aliasing etc. ? i never use it .... because outside of screenshots i never noticed any big 'improvement'

[vraxtus]

Since Apple said that the machine required 512 MB. Obviously, 512 MB wasn't a recommended configuration and 1 GB is hardly much more, especially for playing games, such as UT2004, which are processor-intensive.


Funny... OSX REQUIRES 128... interesting. UT2K4 RECOMMENDS 512... and 1 GB is TWICE as much as 512... curious where you get your #s... even with SetCacheMegs set beyond 256, it's been proven for many games there's no significant boost in performance past that amount.

[vraxtus]

have you checked for anti-aliasing etc. ? i never use it .... because outside of screenshots i never noticed any big 'improvement'


Actually, I never realized how crappy games look without FSAA and AF...

[bousozoku]

Funny... OSX REQUIRES 128... interesting. UT2K4 RECOMMENDS 512... and 1 GB is TWICE as much as 512... curious where you get your #s... even with SetCacheMegs set beyond 256, it's been proven for many games there's no significant boost in performance past that amount.

Yes, Mac OS X (not OSX) will run with only 128 MB. However, it doesn't run nicely until 512 MB, even having only a few simple applications open. It's especially bad if you have a slow hard drive (5400 or 4200 rpm) and fewer than 512 MB. If you would consider trying to run UT2004 with only 512 MB, I would think that you're wanting it to fail to perform and that you had low performance standards, in general.

What is significant? If you're only looking at numbers, that's nice, but that doesn't always tell the story. It's cute to say "my fps is bigger than your fps" but it doesn't always mean a lot. If you put 1 more GB into your machine, it might be significant to your playability, even if the number isn't a big percentage gain.

[vraxtus]

If you would consider trying to run UT2004 with only 512 MB, I would think that you're wanting it to fail to perform and that you had low performance standards, in general.

Let me ask you this, then. Have YOU actually ran UT2K4 with 512 MB?

I HAVE. And the performance change between 512 and 1GB was slim to nil (5%) at most.

What is significant? If you're only looking at numbers, that's nice, but that doesn't always tell the story. It's cute to say "my fps is bigger than your fps" but it doesn't always mean a lot. If you put 1 more GB into your machine, it might be significant to your playability, even if the number isn't a big percentage gain.

So at what point do we measure "significant" against not a "big percentage gain"?

I think your assessments are totally false, seeing as how you've not even had the firsthand experience of dealing with this machine, or spec'd it at either configuration.

[pgc6000]

My opinion: yes.

I think a lot of the Mac gamers that claim that performance is "fine," "acceptable," "playable," or "runs without a hitch," have some fairly low standards.

Seeing as how the new iMacs feature the Halo rates as only percentages, this only further convinces me of that fact. Even on my Rev B 12", I find War3 only barely acceptable... those others that claim it runs "fine" or "perfect" I think really don't game that much.

I guess I'm hoping that one day both Apple and Apple developers will get on the ball, and really push more for gaming on our machines... at least, for better performance. 18 FPS on some UT2K4 maps, with my Rad9800 Pro SE is NOT acceptable to me at all... *especially* having paid so much for it.

But I suppose my desires are as much of a pipe dream as those that think a Powerbook G5 will be out in 6 months :rolleyes:
With what many people said, I say yes to some games. You may remember when I was talking about how Halo ran farily well on my machine, I ment as well as Halo can run. It still ran quite sloppy. But I found the C & C Generals Demo, AOE II (I can hardly remeber the original AOE, I have it lying around somewhere), and AOM to run just fine. I guess it depends on the game.

[takao]

With what many people said, I say yes to some games. You may remember when I was talking about how Halo ran farily well on my machine, I ment as well as Halo can run. It still ran quite sloppy. But I found the C & C Generals Demo, AOE II (I can hardly remeber the original AOE, I have it lying around somewhere), and AOM to run just fine. I guess it depends on the game.

yeah i have age of empires 1+2 lying around as well ...
(i played age of empires on the 486 of my sig...and age of empires2 on my pentium 3 ..so those shouldn't be a problem for any PC either mac or x86 out there...)

from what i've heard generals and AOM can get very demanding with lots of units and high details(and after all those aren't very new...)

is the new settlers going to be released for mac ? ..i've read that is actually designed to meet a lot of old hardware..and from the pictures it looks gorgeous for a 3d RTS...

[Golem]

Well I think some PC gamers have ridiculously high standards but that is just me. I have seen quotes of 30 fps as barely acceptable and unplayable.

To give an example of a game with a nice long baseline I started playing Diablo II on a G3 350? or g4 400? With speeds of 12-30 fps. I found that acceptable. Under a G4 cube 450 Hardware accelerated video started dropping as low as 6 dps and that was too slow. Slow enough to go through Blizzard support and eventually use software mode to get back to 12-30.

Roll on G4 800 tower and I will still using software mode for around the same speeds. 1.10+a G5 1.8 with bleh fx5200 I now sit at around at around 100 fps.

Does it help? probably only a little.

I concede it may help more with a game like ut2k4 but for me since i never play enough to be good and I am old enough for my reactions to have slowed I allways die anyway in that sort of game. Even 5 years ago with Quake II?/III on identical hardware I would die with 1 kill vs 10:(

[~Shard~]

Some PC gamers definitely have unreasonably high standards. Some of this spills into the Mac community at times - just take a look at the mammoth new G5 iMac (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86876) thread and you'll find a lot of people whining how the iMac's FX5200 is crap solely because it won't play Doom3. ;) So yes, in some respects some Mac users have unrealistic standards for gaming, but only in certain respects - I think it boils down to that they want the iMac to be an ultimate gaming machine, which it is obviously not designed to be. But that's another ugly discussion... ;)

In general though, I think Mac users are a little more tolerant of matters relating to games - otherwise, they'd be frustrated and wouldn't use Macs at all if they put such a priority on games. :cool:

[Jimong5]

I guess I'm hoping that one day both Apple and Apple developers will get on the ball, and really push more for gaming on our machines... at least, for better performance. 18 FPS on some UT2K4 maps, with my Rad9800 Pro SE is NOT acceptable to me at all... *especially* having paid so much for it.

thats odd, because I have a dual 867 G4 with a 9700 128 MB, and I dont have 18 FPS maps since the upgrade (1 GB RAM). halo now runs like a dream, given the fact this macs 2 years old... (provided I have pixel shaders off, but even on I get 18 FPS on the cinematics with everything including pixel shaders on, and even 2x FSAA.) WC3 is also flawless, honestly, I can hold over 20 FPS even with full army battles now. maybe the macs arent powerful enough to do FSAA yet (I played halo with full (9x) FSAA on, it was like a pre-rendered movie, but ran like 5 FPS even in simple scenes.game technology is getting to its peak, and shaders and FSAA are the only things really left to boost it further. and truth is, these are hoggy.

[Timelessblur]

thats odd, because I have a dual 867 G4 with a 9700 128 MB, and I dont have 18 FPS maps since the upgrade (1 GB RAM). halo now runs like a dream, given the fact this macs 2 years old... (provided I have pixel shaders off, but even on I get 18 FPS on the cinematics with everything including pixel shaders on, and even 2x FSAA.) WC3 is also flawless, honestly, I can hold over 20 FPS even with full army battles now. maybe the macs arent powerful enough to do FSAA yet (I played halo with full (9x) FSAA on, it was like a pre-rendered movie, but ran like 5 FPS even in simple scenes.game technology is getting to its peak, and shaders and FSAA are the only things really left to boost it further. and truth is, these are hoggy.


I might like to point out the 9800SE is a bad card. it has power but to give you and idea where it stands here is a list of ATi Card from the best to the worse

9800pro
9800 np
9700 pro
9700np
9600XT
9800SE
9600pro
9600NP
The rest of ATI cards

[DarkNovaMatter]

I think many PC gamers have highly unreasonable fps wants. Its sort of the penis envy of the gaming world. You should check out whats happening on your machine, I am getting atleast 30 fps on the large maps (50 meg- and thats not including textures, sounds, logos,etc.). I am fine with a game that gets atleast 20 fps and is smooth (meanings no hick-ups). With a 1.4 ghz cube and a Radeon 9K and 896 meg (ram usually only speeds up slower machines) of ram (only 2x agp too), I run UT2k4 on 1024x768 or even 1280x (forgot verticle res) with 2x FSAA (not much but its still good) and get 30 fps.

Most time why macs have lower FPS is because the code is ported from Dircet X to Open GL, the code might be specific for x86, or the code might not be exactly the best code (or might even be a bad port- macplay has had a few that have had problems). One thing though, I have found Open GL to be a verry good quality render'er, sure it may be slower then Direct X but it has been a sure fire thing. Also remember that specific code (Direct X for the most part is tied to x86) is always going to run better on its intended platform.

[Jimong5]

I might like to point out the 9800SE is a bad card. it has power but to give you and idea where it stands here is a list of ATi Card from the best to the worse

9800pro
9800 np
9700 pro
9700np
9600XT
9800SE
9600pro
9600NP
The rest of ATI cards

thats odd, I was under the impression that the SE was ATI's flagship card for the mac currently (having twice the vram at least) are you sure that the 9600 xt is faster than the 256 MB ati card?

[Daveman Deluxe]

The 9800SE is the same as the 9800 pro, only with half of the pipelines.

[nagromme]

Some, including hard-core gamers, have HIGH standards. Plenty of those are Mac users, and some whine on these forums as a result :) Which isn't bad as long as they also whine directly to Apple!

Other Mac users have lower standards. I'd say I'm in the middle, and appreciate both views.

That, of course, is true of PC users too. It's not as if PC users all have high standards. My PC friends have some PITIFUL old machines, and they have fun with their choppy 3D games all the same.

There's no one right standard--unless maybe it's "am I having fun?"

[kilpajr]

I have a 15" PB with ATI 9700 128MB video card and 512MB RAM. I have played WC3 with no problems whatsoever with all settings at high. I don't know what kind of fps I am getting but I do not notice any jerkiness.

I have also played the UT2004 demo and was surprised by how smooth it was. I don't know what settings I had (probably the default) but it was very playable. Even when there were 3-4 guys in a room, I didn't detect any slowdown. I am thinking about buying the full version. Has anyone tried the full version on this machine, and if so how was the performance?

[vraxtus]

I might like to point out the 9800SE is a bad card. it has power but to give you and idea where it stands here is a list of ATi Card from the best to the worse

9800pro
9800 np
9700 pro
9700np
9600XT
9800SE
9600pro
9600NP
The rest of ATI cards

Wow, this is the most blatantly INCORRECT statement I've seen in a while.

I'll let BareFeats (http://www.barefeats.com/g525b.html) prove just how incorrect you are.

Silly noobs hah :rolleyes:

Oh and in case you're wondering, the 9800 SE is a PRO card. GG

[vraxtus]

The 9800SE is the same as the 9800 pro, only with half of the pipelines.

And what the hell are you talking about?

Check ATI's site... they both have 8 pipelines... plus the Pro retail is only 2X/4X AGP... the SE is 8X...

[Mav451]

The Mac 9800Pro SE is not the 9800SE. The SE for the Mac version stands for "Special Edition", e.g., the 9800XT, if you will, for the Mac.

Why ATi chose to name it with such confusioning nomenclature is beyond me.

*edit*
Ok, the 9800Pro SE for Mac isn't the equivalent of the 9800XT (412/730) for PC. Since it runs at 380/700, it is much closer to a regular ATi 9800 Pro w/ 128MB RAM (380/680).

http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html

[oingoboingo]

The Mac 9800Pro SE is not the 9800SE. The SE for the Mac version stands for "Special Edition", e.g., the 9800XT, if you will, for the Mac.

Why ATi chose to name it with such confusioning nomenclature is beyond me.

*edit*
Ok, the 9800Pro SE for Mac isn't the equivalent of the 9800XT (412/730) for PC. Since it runs at 380/700, it is much closer to a regular ATi 9800 Pro w/ 128MB RAM (380/680).

http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html

Yeah, I was just about to jump in and point that out before things got nastier on this thread, but you beat me to it :) I definitely think there has been some confusion between the PC Radeon 9800 SE (the cut down 'budget' version) and the Macintosh Radeon 9800 Special Edition (the not-at-all-budget, all-pipelines-intact-thankyou-very-much 256MB version).

To vraxtus...yeah...on my 1.6GHz G5 with 1.25GB RAM and the Radeon 9600 Pro you can often see the FPS count drop down into the teens during a fierce game of Onslaught. I play at 1280x1024x32, with a mix of 'Normal' and 'High' detail settings, and all the optional extras turned on. Normally I'm getting frame rates in the mid-twenties during Onslaught, rising up to the mid-thirties when you're off in a quiet part of the map without 10 other players swarming around a power node trying to destroy it / save it.

Anyway...I look forward to seeing some iMac G5 games benchmarks in the next few weeks. The speculation and arguing is driving me nuts at the moment. With some real FPS scores to evaluate, people can decide for themselves using an objective measure if the new iMac will cut it in the gaming department (and other departments as well, of course).

[Dont Hurt Me]

Yes Mac users have a low standard and PC users have a very high standard. Lets face it when you start dropping below 30 FPS the human eye can start picking it up. I myself am not looking forward to imac benches because they will be less then 1.6 or 1.8 powermac with fx5200s in them. Plenty of benches to show these are not stellar game machine's so imac will only be less with its slower bus and any other crippling down Apple has done to get it all into that tight area. Its still a big step forward for Apple who seemed not to be able to let go of old G4. I still get a kick when people are saying it looks great at 20 fps when for me 20 Fps is unplayable.

[AppleMatt]

Well lets lighten the tone a bit;

Things are improving, Apple held a "secret" gaming conference in January with a number of leading players to get their feedback on what needs improving. Also, you can email the OpenGL team directly for what extensions are slow/missing. Apple's implementation of OpenAL is included in Tiger, something which Ryan Gordon said was "basically awesome". Finally, 10.3.4 introduced VBO which will speed up future porting of games as they won't have to write a VAR path.

Lets hope with Panther > Tiger we get a bigger fps jump than we did with Jaguar > Panther. What about the people going from Jaguar > Tiger :eek:

AppleMatt
edit: As a side note the iMac product pages claim it can play Doom 3. Don't flame the mesenger.

[AppleMatt]

Forgot to ask, does anyone know how to contact THQ without having to register on their site? There must be a public email address somewhere...

AppleMatt

[Timelessblur]

The Mac 9800Pro SE is not the 9800SE. The SE for the Mac version stands for "Special Edition", e.g., the 9800XT, if you will, for the Mac.

Why ATi chose to name it with such confusioning nomenclature is beyond me.

*edit*
Ok, the 9800Pro SE for Mac isn't the equivalent of the 9800XT (412/730) for PC. Since it runs at 380/700, it is much closer to a regular ATi 9800 Pro w/ 128MB RAM (380/680).

http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html

that would explan the confuses on it then. On the PC sind the there is not pro SE we have the XT line over there

The SE line on the PC are pretty much crappy cards so it confuses people.

The list is more or less true for the PC cards but you will see the 9600XT and 9800SE trade places depending on the list but the 9800SE on PC is below the 9700 line

[vraxtus]

The list is more or less true for the PC cards but you will see the 9600XT and 9800SE trade places depending on the list but the 9800SE on PC is below the 9700 line


OK that explains it then. I thought you were referring to the Mac hierarchy for ATI boards... which was not right at all. :D

[benpatient]

in the PC world, an ATI card with SE on it is a crippled version of a Pro card.

In the mac world, the SE version is the best one they are offering...

My gaming performance on my dual 1.8 doesn't change at all when i take out 2 of my 2.5 GB of RAM, so I don't know what the "512 mb isn't enough guy" is talking about. UT2K4 just doesn't run very well either way. If there is a change, it's too small to notice. Forget the fact that I only had 512 mb of RAM on my old PC and it runs UT2K4 better than my dual 1.8 with 2.5GB and a RAID 0 array.

The G5 kills photoshop filters. It chokes on 3d games. it is sad. but it is the truth.

If you think i'm off base, let me ask you this: Why is Nanosaur 2 something to be excited about? I mean, seriously, WTF? "Cause to rejoice"???

embarrassing.

[vraxtus]

My gaming performance on my dual 1.8 doesn't change at all when i take out 2 of my 2.5 GB of RAM, so I don't know what the "512 mb isn't enough guy" is talking about. UT2K4 just doesn't run very well either way. If there is a change, it's too small to notice. Forget the fact that I only had 512 mb of RAM on my old PC and it runs UT2K4 better than my dual 1.8 with 2.5GB and a RAID 0 array.

So sad...

If you think i'm off base, let me ask you this: Why is Nanosaur 2 something to be excited about? I mean, seriously, WTF? "Cause to rejoice"???

embarrassing.


Exactly... that goes to my point of low standards right there. I mean really, who the hell plays NANOSAUR with an unheathly obsession. Most popular and graphically intense games nowadays are the ones people want... not a washed up child's game. It's sad to see that Macs are performing so badly compared to their PC counterparts.

[AppleMatt]

I think people are ignoring the fact that the PC version of UT2004 uses a DirectX render, whereas Mac uses OpenGL. The gap would close a lot if you benchmarked PC OpenGL.

AppleMatt

[vraxtus]

I think people are ignoring the fact that the PC version of UT2004 uses a DirectX render, whereas Mac uses OpenGL. The gap would close a lot if you benchmarked PC OpenGL.

AppleMatt

I think the best assessment for this will be seen when Doom3 comes out for Mac. Since they're both OpenGL based I'd hope results would be a little more similar. But even then, some benches claim that Q3 runs much better (+50 FPS) on a PC than on a Mac.

[benpatient]

you can run the PC version of UT2K4 with the oGl codepath using the .ini file. In fact, it runs 1-5 fps slower on ATI hardware, and remains virtually unchanged on nVidia hardware.

[vraxtus]

you can run the PC version of UT2K4 with the oGl codepath using the .ini file. In fact, it runs 1-5 fps slower on ATI hardware, and remains virtually unchanged on nVidia hardware.


Well that's because nVidia cards are optimized for OpenGL support... so that explains it right there.

[BrianKonarsMac]

i'm not sure if we have low game performance standards, but i don't need 180+fps to make me happy. anything above 30+ looks good to me. i'm not really a mac gamer though, i just play blizzard titles (W3, WoW Beta, SC), and they all run fine for me. i remember you saying W3 runs like **** for you, so maybe my standards are low, but i haven't had any complaints from my PC using friends on W3 performance when they play on my computer so...

[Lord Blackadder]

It is an established fact that most games are not written primarily for Apple hardware, which requires a port. Ports vary in quality. Video accelerator boards and their all important drivers are PC-first, Mac later if ever.

The Mac as a gaming machine has always been something less than the sum of its parts, because Macs always play second fiddle when it comes to creating gaming hardware and software. Apple itself behaves this way. Great performance leaps could be made just by enhancing the the way the existing hardware interacts; better drivers, better ports (or parallel multiplatform game releases) and so forth.

As it stands, gamers on macs cannot experience the gaming quality available to their PC brethren.

Anyway, I think that "hardcore" PC gaming is the elitist end of video gaming I'm not saying that's bad, just that it only represents those people who are willing to spend $$ in return for the best experience . Console gamers don't have the hardware concerns that PC gamers do, but get a very smooth gaming experience for cheap (with a few exceptions) nonetheless. At a lower res, of course.

I've played Diablo II on my iMac (sig) since '99 using software rendering (the Rage card was buggy under patch 1.10 and OS 9, and now I'm on Panther and the damn thing can't even be used!). I have fun. I don't know what the framerates are. My brother just got CoD for his brand new 12" 1.33Ghz PB, and I enjoyed it. It was choppy. I was entertained.

HOWEVER, if I was to spend $$ on a new machine and video card for the purpose of playing games, I would expect it to over-perform, not just be adaquate. Macs do not over-perform on games, the stuff I hear on these forums convinces me of that. A $4000 computer bought to game with should satisfy all but a fanatical fraction of gamers.

How does Diablo II run on the G5? :D

[benpatient]

The same way it runs on a Pentium II or III

[takao]

Anyway, I think that "hardcore" PC gaming is the elitist end of video gaming I'm not saying that's bad, just that it only represents those people who are willing to spend $$ in return for the best experience . Console gamers don't have the hardware concerns that PC gamers do, but get a very smooth gaming experience for cheap (with a few exceptions) nonetheless. At a lower res, of course.

and even on the PC side the "hardcore gamer" percentage is very small of all users..that's something which i'm very annoyed about some threads in the rumours etc. as soon as i'm concered about a budget graphics card.. i get called "PC fanboy" or i shall go out buy a dell/alienware or powermac (which i all would never buy ..well perhaps expect a powermac someday ;) )
where are all the gamers who buy 'the middle class cards' on the mac ? ... i'm missing those completly ... gaming isn't something mythical professional user stuff.... even apple advertise with games+graphics on the emac and imac etc.

those hardcare gamers of the PC don't bother about mac at all... heck i know people who have been leading the european half life deathmatch league ... none of them had a dell or alienware etc or another 'package' every pC built by themself.. (and none of them hade those bells and whistles/ neon crap like it is in fashion today) alienware buyers are nearly everytime spoiled rich kids or people who aren't willign to built a pc on their own...their reputation is bad...really bad....(do i dare to say 'posers') ..in the circles of the _real_ good ones (who train 4-8 hours a day 7 days a week...at least it was about this last time i asked them)..

on a mac gaming forum there aren't any of those..i think most gamers in here are very casual gamers playing for fun but who have demands

sorry for the rant...but i needed that...(in 2001 i was much more serious about gaming than today...could have join the B squad of that clan but i refused because i didn't have a very fast connection at that time... now i'm 21 and have completly lost my reflexes)

i personally have looked at fps once when testing UT2004


How does Diablo II run on the G5? :D[/QUOTE]

[Lord Blackadder]

That's all I need it to do.

Mac gaming: excellent potential, half-arsed execution.

[Timelessblur]

I say going dell is you want a cheap computer is the way to go but alienware is a no no. You can easily just build you own rig that is cheaper and more powerful.

Also Apple can be held partily at fault for crappy game proformeces and the lack of games. The makers of the game are not going to bother taking apple serioslly or really put a huge amount of effort into making games for the Mac until apple gets a bit more serios about it. More than just saying they are good and backing them with very questionable test. I mean they start putting better graphic cards in there systems. Or at least offering the ablitly to upgrade them later. Apple has to take the first step and start making a point that they want games on there system

I mean MS got involved in the game earily making it clear they wanted games on there OS. MS delevopled DirctX for there OS and it help out quite a bit.

[Lord Blackadder]

Make no mistake, the only thing DirectX has "help[ed] out" is the relegation of OpenGL to an "also ran" as far as standards go. It is thus to a significant extent responsible for the lackluster performance of Mac gaming hardware.

M$ wanted a proprietary standard so that developers would be forced to adopt it and the best titles would run best on it and only it, to the exclusion of other platforms/standards. Not helpful to us.

[vraxtus]

M$ wanted a proprietary standard so that developers would be forced to adopt it and the best titles would run best on it and only it, to the exclusion of other platforms/standards. Not helpful to us.

Don't forget though that M$ has a significant investment share in OpenGL... and what with D3 being OpenGL only that screws 95% of the PC gaming market share... at least against DirectX that is.

[Lord Blackadder]

That's true, but unfortunately we only see such things when free thinkers such as John Carmack are involved.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I feel that M$ is only investing in OpenGL as a way to hedge their bets. They'll help keep OpenGL viable so that it appears to be a competitor to DirectX, but use their resources to ensure that it never eclipses DirectX as the "weapon of choice" for game developers.

Fortunately for us, OpenGL still is VERY viable.

[Hemingray]

Okay, guys, you have me a little worried here. In mid-2005, I plan on getting a G5. I want to get back into gaming, since my G4 Yikes hasn't pulled its weight on any good games since Quake 3, even with a Radeon 7000 PCI.

Assuming I get the mid-2005 equivalent of what the Radeon 9800 SE is now, will it be worth it? From the sounds of it, the high end card for Macs aren't even pulling the weight of current games, let alone games that will be out a year or two from now! That's pretty scary.

P.S. I would consider anything under 30FPS at max settings to be borderline unacceptable. Feel free to rank my "standards", tell me if that's too much to ask or if it's reasonable.

[takao]

Okay, guys, you have me a little worried here. In mid-2005, I plan on getting a G5. I want to get back into gaming, since my G4 Yikes hasn't pulled its weight on any good games since Quake 3, even with a Radeon 7000 PCI.

Assuming I get the mid-2005 equivalent of what the Radeon 9800 SE is now, will it be worth it? From the sounds of it, the high end card for Macs aren't even pulling the weight of current games, let alone games that will be out a year or two from now! That's pretty scary.

hm it's hard to tell one year ahead and considering the "future mac annoucments variable"
at least i can say you that any radeon 9800 in mid 05 will be alreardy 2 years old and in need of a replacement...perhaps getting something between middle class and top end of the graphic cards would be fitting (both the x800 and 6800 are a _huge_ gap ahead of the 9800 regardless of model or version)


P.S. I would consider anything under 30FPS at max settings to be borderline unacceptable. Feel free to rank my "standards", tell me if that's too much to ask or if it's reasonable.

depends on resolution and age and price of computer (at least to me)

you know it's easier to accept a temporary drop in frame rate from 40-50 on high detail on 1024x768 to below 25 fps on a 2 year old 700 € PC than on a less than 1 year old 2000+ € PC ...

[Lord Blackadder]

Others can correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not a serious gamer, but...

I think that the machine you seek will be available in the G5 tower line. However, to stay constantly above you're required 30fps threshold, you are looking at a $4000 rig, I would think. Even the most maxed out systems might dip down into the high 20s on occasion. Check barefeats and see what their most insane rigs yield, as I would venture to guess that in 6-12 months new machines and new games will perform just as well as new machines/games do now, i.e. the tech will improve but the games will be more demanding so that the average fps will remain constant.

One big question mark is Tiger. It may make things run faster, but I won't speculate further there.

[Hemingray]

hm it's hard to tell one year ahead and considering the "future mac annoucments variable"
at least i can say you that any radeon 9800 in mid 05 will be alreardy 2 years old and in need of a replacement...perhaps getting something between middle class and top end of the graphic cards would be fitting (both the x800 and 6800 are a _huge_ gap ahead of the 9800 regardless of model or version)

You're right, it's kinda unfair to speculate so far ahead, but I've been waiting for years to upgrade my computer, so I've been chomping at the bit ever since the G5's came out. :)

From the sounds of it, in mid-2005 the Radon X800 will be in the position that the 9800 is in now price-wise (assuming ATI gets a Mac edition out by then). Guess we won't truly know for sure until we see some benchmarks.

Thanks for your input!

[MacsRgr8]

Tnx to the 30" Display we now finally have a cutting edge grfx card:
nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra.

I am all with ATi until the announcement of the 6800. I ordered this one at once. I have the OEM 9800 Pro (128 MB VRAM) in my Dual 1.8 GHz now, but I also notice the occasional "crap performance-for-the-hardware-i-have".

As Doom 3 is coming our way, I didn't want to embarrass myself with 10 fps at high settings...

I'm pretty sure those few Mac gamers out there (me included) do have high standards, but we are a minority.

I'm trying to stay positive: The nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra will change Mac gaming. Suddenly we can actually experience all 3D beauty which was previously just exclusive for the high-end gaming PC.
Now, let ATi deliver the X800 series (the XT, please!) to the Mac, and let the games begin.

Just to start ranting again.....
IMHO a 5200 in an iMac G5 20" is crap.

[ZildjianKX]

Do mac gamers have low standards? Well, I'm a switcher... I had to buy a Radeon 9800 Pro to get "reasonable" performance... and in the end, I'm still not too impressed with my mac's performance... I've been playing a lot more console games lately...

[jsw]

I think that Mac gamers are, on average, older than PC gamers. I also think that Mac gamers, in general, use their Macs for gaming a smaller percentage of the time than PC gamers.Finally, I think that many Mac gamers are as happy or happier playing WCIII or CivIII as they would be playing Doom III, regardless of the frame rate. In general, I think that there's much less demand for good FPS performance on Macs, which admittedly is due somewhat to the lack of said performance but, I think, due more to the demographics of Mac users.

So, do we have low game performance standards? Perhaps. But I'd say that we are arguably happier playing our games than our PC brethren, because we know we're not the fastest, we know we never will be, and we've accepted it. As a result, we stop caring and just have fun playing. Very, very few Mac users upgrade their GPUs to get better game performance. It just isn't that big of a deal.

Of course, there a legions of rabid Mac gamers. But they are a minority, and it's wrong to assume that they're a minority simply because the platform isn't as good at gaming. Macs could be precisely as fast at gaming as PCs, and I'd bet that you still see fewer mac owners who cared.

[panphage]

Also Apple can be held partily at fault for crappy game proformeces and the lack of games. The makers of the game are not going to bother taking apple serioslly or really put a huge amount of effort into making games for the Mac until apple gets a bit more serios about it. More than just saying they are good and backing them with very questionable test. I mean they start putting better graphic cards in there systems. Or at least offering the ablitly to upgrade them later. Apple has to take the first step and start making a point that they want games on there system

The main point here is valid, but the bit about graphics cards...well Apple can only get so much development, I mean driver development, out of the chips makers. It's just not worth it to ATI or nVidia to throw tons of development at the Mac platform...because the sales are so much lower. I think Apple has taken one big step in this regard by ditching the ADC (which I actually thought was kindof a cool idea if they could have gotten more variety of boards with drivers and ACD connections) but maybe they can go farther and develop their own drivers for the cards, like the linux folks had to do in the Dark Ages.

[AppleMatt]

you can run the PC version of UT2K4 with the oGl codepath using the .ini file. In fact, it runs 1-5 fps slower on ATI hardware, and remains virtually unchanged on nVidia hardware.

This is complete rubbish, everyone knows UT's OpenGL rendered on Windows is slow. Quick search on google and first link clicked of a users results:

"Nevertheless, it is clear that the OpenGL renderer is significantly slower than the Direct3D one--not that that's a big surprise. That's basically what Epic's been saying from the beginning."

Also from the official readme included with the Windows version of the game"

The OpenGL renderer is not officially supported on Windows but might be
a good choice on certain hardware / driver combinations as it might
trigger fewer bugs in drivers. Unless you are experiencing serious visual
flaws there is no reason to change to the OpenGL renderer though. Unlike
Unreal Tournament, Unreal Tournament 2003 was designed around D3D and
offers the best performance and visual quality with the D3D renderer.

Also please keep in mind that the OpenGL renderer is still work in
progress and has higher system requirements than the D3D renderer. E.g.
it relies on the presence of texture compression which rules out e.g.
TNT2 cards.


AppleMatt

[Veldek]

The main point here is valid, but the bit about graphics cards...well Apple can only get so much development, I mean driver development, out of the chips makers. It's just not worth it to ATI or nVidia to throw tons of development at the Mac platform...because the sales are so much lower.

I think this isn’t entirely true. I read an interview with someone from ATI who said that they made a driver that performed significantly better in games, but Apple didn’t want it, because they wanted the drivers to be best at Pro apps not games. I hope Apple changed/changes their mind on this one.

[MacsRgr8]

I think this isn’t entirely true. I read an interview with someone from ATI who said that they made a driver that performed significantly better in games, but Apple didn’t want it, because they wanted the drivers to be best at Pro apps not games. I hope Apple changed/changes their mind on this one.

WTF??

Damn.... you just ruined my day. :mad:

But not entirely unexpected... :rolleyes:
I said it in another thread somewhere, that I think Steve himself does not care for games at all, until he finds out that games can also sell hardware.

What will sell better... Motion or Doom 3?

[Veldek]

WTF??

Damn.... you just ruined my day. :mad:

Well, that wasn't my intention, of course. And this has been a while ago (some months, I think) and seeing how Apple seems to start focussing on games, too, I really hope they changed their mind since then and put this or a similar good driver in Tiger at least.

[MacsRgr8]

Well, that wasn't my intention, of course. And this has been a while ago (some months, I think) and seeing how Apple seems to start focussing on games, too, I really hope they changed their mind since then and put this or a similar good driver in Tiger at least.

Well, it's Friday... so I can take a little more than usual ;)
I won't let it ruin my weekend. :p

I still find it hard to believe that Apple is really trying their best to get gaming going on Macs, especially now that the iMac is stuck at a "mere" 5200, even the top-end. I hope Doom 3 (which will be the 3D gaming benchmark app) runs well on it.... :rolleyes:

[KrysBaz]

Hi all, this is my first post so please don't flame me to pieces.

I have to agree that gaming on the mac is not what it could be, the few games that are out there tha I enjoy run sooo slowly it is unbearable at times.

Personally I love Sim CIty 4, but when you have been playing for a couple of hours, it really is poor.

I can't do the first person shooters, but do enjoy warcraft, and to be honest that runs fine.

Having said that, I have tried in vain to play Star trek Bridge Comander on the on our PC, it meets the spec, but is unplayable. Just wish I could play it on the mac. Maybe there will be a chance with VPC 7. (but won't hold my breath)

[Veldek]

Found the Q&A session:

Also I have heard that one difference in Apple drivers vs PC drivers is that they are more "workstation" tuned as opposed to "game" tuned, is this true? I have heard that the cards on the Mac (and I heard this specifically in reference to Nvida cards) had many of the "workstation" driver features as Apple needed and demanded a certain level of image quality.


I can't go into details here other than to say that Apple will not ship anything that does not maintain the highest level of image quality and correctness. If the driver had some optimization that would boost game performance, but would impact the image quality in a negative manner, this change would not be accepted by Apple.

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=6550956755&p=2

Perhaps it's not as bad as I said before but it really says we can't expect game tweaked drivers by ATI because of Apple.

[Converted2Truth]

I am going to take a swim in the shark tank and venture to say that my experience with the mac gamming community has been limited to ALL YOU WONDERFUL PEOPLE! In reality, I'd say that about 10-25% of the mac gaming community has expectations over 30fps. The rest? i think they are part of the heard which think that first person shooters, etc. are awesome slideshows. The latest POLL over at insidemacgames asks if people are loving/hating/undecided about the new iMac. Over 70% are in favor of the new iSlideShowMac! WTF! While being part of the mac community means being among some of the most intelligent, it also includes being around some of the most mentally retarded... What a bi-polar community....

[jsw]

I am going to take a swim in the shark tank and venture to say that my experience with the mac gamming community has been limited to ALL YOU WONDERFUL PEOPLE! In reality, I'd say that about 10-25% of the mac gaming community has expectations over 30fps. The rest? i think they are part of the heard which think that first person shooters, etc. are awesome slideshows. The latest POLL over at insidemacgames asks if people are loving/hating/undecided about the new iMac. Over 70% are in favor of the new iSlideShowMac! WTF! While being part of the mac community means being among some of the most intelligent, it also includes being around some of the most mentally retarded... What a bi-polar community....Er, what? It's really hard for me to interpret what you're trying to say here. As far as I can tell, you're saying that 75-90% of the Mac gaming community - and presumably all non-gamers - expect 30fps or less. I'm not sure if you're trying to say this is intelligent or "mentally retarded".

[Converted2Truth]

Er, what? It's really hard for me to interpret what you're trying to say here. As far as I can tell, you're saying that 75-90% of the Mac gaming community - and presumably all non-gamers - expect 30fps or less. I'm not sure if you're trying to say this is intelligent or "mentally retarded".
I'm sayin (based on the insidemacgames poll) that 70% or so of mac gamers are in favor of the imac G5. Or in other words... 70% are in favor of slide show gaming. Please excuse my statement about mentally ********. I'm just in a bad mood.

[Timelessblur]

Well part of the reason it like that is the mac is a lot of people switch over to the plateform because well they are complete idoits when it comes to computers and have 0 clue how to use them or maintain them correctly. Apple computers just get away with it a lot easier.

Problem is those same people dont play games or anything and really only care about eyecandy in the OS and how easy is it to use. Apple deleviers those things to keep them happy.

Also a lot of the people on both plateforms dont game or use there computer for playing games apple my just have a slightly larger % so that hurts just do to the numbers games so they have low standers pulling down.

Next the ones who do game some of them have given up on Apple games ever being as good as the ones on PC. Plus apple lacks the hardcore games since Hardcore games will never switch over so apple also lacks those people to demand higher standards from apple.

So all in all bettween the computer idots on apple who could careless and the lack of hardcore gamers it really hurts. But the lack of the hardcore gamers prouble hurts the most since they are not demanding the the stuff.

[vraxtus]

Well part of the reason it like that is the mac is a lot of people switch over to the plateform because well they are complete idoits when it comes to computers and have 0 clue how to use them or maintain them correctly. Apple computers just get away with it a lot easier.


What's funny is I heard a guy say that he wanted to get a Mac because they "play games better"

rooooooofl

[Yvan256]

What's funny is I heard a guy say that he wanted to get a Mac because they "play games better"

Well, not having your OS crash in the middle of a game does make a better gaming experience. ;-)

[iNetwork]

I think they do, because even the latest dual 2.0's (an actual, shipping product) can't even compete speed wise with a compareable PC running the same game. Mac gamers have low performance standards because the most expensive machines cannot even begin to compete with a PC!

"Acceptable" game play for me as a PC gamer is 60 fps, from what I've read in this forum, I deduct that 20 fps for a mac gamer is acceptable. There is a totally different feel in games when you have more FPS...
my $.02

[macidiot]

WTF??

Damn.... you just ruined my day. :mad:

But not entirely unexpected... :rolleyes:
I said it in another thread somewhere, that I think Steve himself does not care for games at all, until he finds out that games can also sell hardware.

What will sell better... Motion or Doom 3?

Steve doesn't like games at all. This is well documented. He, and Apple, actively discouraged games on the Macintosh. The old Apple II used to be great for gaming. He's all about using the computer to create. The whole grand vision thing of using computers to change the world.

[oingoboingo]

Steve doesn't like games at all. This is well documented. He, and Apple, actively discouraged games on the Macintosh. The old Apple II used to be great for gaming. He's all about using the computer to create. The whole grand vision thing of using computers to change the world.

I wonder if this attitude at Apple has changed a bit though. The iMac G5 part of Apple's web site is littered with references to gaming, and the large Halo/UT2004 performance comparison graph between the new iMac and old one is used twice. UT2004 is mentioned on the front page (www.apple.com/imac), games are given heavy attention on the G5 processor page (www.apple.com/imac/processor.html), including screenshots of UT2004, World of Warcraft and Doom 3 are mentioned on the design page (www.apple.com/imac/design.html), then we have a picture of Jedi Academy (I think? Maybe it's KOTOR) headlining the widescreen graphics page (www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html), along with a screenshot from Nanosaur, the game performance graph (again), plus numerous references in the text to gaming. Finally, in the software section (www.apple.com/imac/software.html), the included games software (Nanosaur and Marble Blast Gold) are mentioned.

In fact, gaming is given as high, if not higher, billing on the iMac G5 website than apps like iLife are. I've kind of been amused by the hundreds of posts in the 'iMac G5 released' thread that "Apple isn't trying to attract gamers!!!", and "The Mac isn't for games!!!". Apple seems to disagree (let's not start talking about the wisdom of the GeForce FX 5200 inclusion again though...please).

It's kind of ironic that some of the more innovative features of OS X (Quartz Extreme acceleration, and soon CoreImage and CoreVideo hardware acceleration) have been made available by the gaming-fuelled appearance of cheap, mass-market high performance 3D accelerator cards.

[bux]

Why games often run badly on the Mac is that the games that are released for the Mac platform is often very badly optimized for this platform. But I think xcode 2.0 will change that (or atleast help abit).

I saw some examples from the torque game engine (the engine used by: Marble Blast, Think Tanks and Orbz), the texture blender that were used in the engine (it's going to be updated very soon) were not using the altivec extensions on the g4 and g5 processors.
The demo that were used to test this was peformed: ~15-25 FPS.
And after a rewrite of the texture blender to use the altivec extensions the performace was massivly incresed, the demo peformed: ~45-115 FPS.

Okay, this was quite off topic.
But why I posted this was because people that think that the Mac platform is not good for gamers should be proven wrong! :)
Sure the lack of games makes the Mac platform less attractive, but I don't think it's fair to say that "Macs sucks on games".

[AssassinOfGates]

<long rant>

I am, and always have been a mac fanatic. From my Mac LC to my current Dual 867 I have always used a mac from everything to word processing, Kid Pix, MAME, Wolfenstein 3D, to the modern day apps as the Gimp and UT2004. I have never been let down. I remember when all of the sweet games were dual platform and near simultaneous release, such as Dark Forces. Ah, such a good game - I lost many hours of my life on it especially with the custom maps.

When Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight came out, I found myself petitioning to no end to get it ported. I even bought it in hopes of it running as smooth as the PC version of Dark Forces did under VPC or RealPC. In the end, I installed it on a friend's PC. A while later I entered the console era and forgot about my PC/Mac woes until I remembered how good it is to kill with a mouse and keyboard.

Flash forward to now. Games are once again entering the days of simultaneous release, but only from certain companies such as ID, Blizzard, and Epic. Even then, we are still hindered by other aspects such as broken compatibility when patches are released (think 3270 patch) and RtCW. Avbout a month ago I took my Mac to a LAN party and was having a good time delivering the ownage, when some guy shows up and starts transferring the 3270 patch that was released two days ago. Without any reason or objection, everyone patched, and I was left playing bots instead of humans. Not cool. And then some games just don't come out at all.

Another hinderance is upgradability and price. The sole reason I bought a Powermac was that they could be upgraded - or so I thought. Eventually everyone found out that only the Quicksilver and lower models have upgradeable daughter cards, and the only performance upgrades were video cards and ram. For those with quicksilvers, the CPU upgrades are still extremely pricey. Well, in February I upgraded the GeForce 4 MX to a Ti 4600 for about $250, and saw little improvements in games such as UT2003 and Halo. My roommate, running a GF 4 Ti 4200 on his AMD 2200 saw much better results. BF1942 will run helluva slow on my rig thanks to the processors, and there's nothing I can do short of a risky overclock.

The bottleneck processors, when the need to be upgraded, can not. Only option would be buying a rare daughtercard off ebay, or selling the system to buy another in hopes that this does not happen with the G5s as well. This means a lot of money that most college students can not afford. Even if they could afford it, they would be burdened with the same crap they have been burdened with in the past. Broken patches, long waiting times or no games at all (thanks Valve...), bad OpenGL performances, and paying a huge price to play games at a fraction of the speed as the PC counterparts.

I've been broken. While keeping my mac for all my daily works, I can safely say my next rig will be a dual boot PC for gaming. I just hope things will get better so I can run a mac only setup once more.

Do I have high expectations? No. Maintaining 30fps on almost all maps despite # of human players @ 1024x768 with no FSAA is good enough for me. I do have expectations of delivering vengance in LANs without breaking the bank while using a mac. Right now that just seems like a neverending dream.

</long rant>

[macidiot]

I wonder if this attitude at Apple has changed a bit though.


I agree, it has. Despite Jobs' attitude for games, I think they realize they have to have at least some games for Mac. And to be fair, part of the reason Apple didn't support gaming is because they didn't want to turn into Atari and Commodore. But gaming on the mac is basically on life support. Nanosaur and MarbleBlast are just shareware. Nice, but we aren't talking GTA here. Its Yahoo games stuff. We get a handful of games a year. We might get quality titles, but they are always delayed, sometimes up to a year or more. Remember that neverwinter nights was supposed to be simultaneous release? And when we get them, they often run terribly. The only real exception is Blizzard. Apple should be doin' Blizzards laundry.

But the interesting thing I've noticed are the parallels in PC gaming. Back in the day, Apple was a good gaming platform. EA used to be an Apple only company. Then everything shifted to the PC. Now the PC is getting killed by the consoles. We get the ports from PC. But now, the PC gets ports from consoles. And your starting to hear the same complaints about PC gaming that Apple gamers have had for years. Stuff like bad ports, delays, etc. Its kind of interesting to see the old pc fanboys go through the same thing we've gone through.

fyi, console games now make up about 80% of the market. PC's are definately playing second fiddle to the consoles. The trick now is for Apple to get the same ports from consoles...

[applekid]

I haven't had time to voice my opinion, so I'll do it now:

To answer the topic, Mac gamers don't have low expectations. They just aren't hardcore.

Mac users don't buy Macs for gaming. Even then, if gaming is one of their bigger priorities, they'll buy the high-end G5 or settle for a PC with their Mac. You don't see many overclocking tools for the Mac either. Another sign gaming isn't important. Games on the Mac sell relatively slowly unless there is a lot of hype behind it. It takes a couple of months for sales to pick up and be profitable compared to the PC where an instant-hit isn't too rare. Most importantly, Mac users are mostly casual gamers. They pick out a few games they want and if it's playable for them, it's good enough. Look at what comes pre-installed on Macs. Not the best in quality, but not the worst either.

vraxtus, you're the only person I know that expects to have at least 30 FPS with good settings, 1280 x 1024, and 4x AA in current games. Even my PC buddies don't have that kind of expectations on their gaming rigs with similar hardware! They'll accept 1024 x 768 with 2x AA or less and say it's good. And I find that to be good, too. Personally, I think you're expecting too much whatever the price may be for a computer. Especially considering how you don't even bother to lower your settings and change settings as games require them. My PC buddies definitely lower settings as they need to. They don't expect the same settings to work the same for every game.

BTW, the iMac G5 might be better than expected for gaming. I've read something on the IMG forum about how UT2K4 Demo played great on the iMac compared to a similar G5. As in, you can definitely see good frame rates. There's something special in those iMacs... :confused:

[7on]

Considering film runs at 24FPS, PAL @ 25FPS and NTSC @ 30FPS I saw 30FPS for games is fine for me. In fact, console games are limited by their PAl or NTSC fps. Personally I doubt it gives anyone an edge. PC gamers aren't nessesarily better gamers because they can get 100FPS in Halo whereas consolers get 30FPS @ 720x480px even.

It's probably also the same how someone with a 27" TV can be satisfied with their television and someone with an HDTV Plasmaüber screen wants something better.

[oingoboingo]

BTW, the iMac G5 might be better than expected for gaming. I've read something on the IMG forum about how UT2K4 Demo played great on the iMac compared to a similar G5. As in, you can definitely see good frame rates. There's something special in those iMacs... :confused:

Smells like subjective wishful thinking to me. Did they post frame rates or a benchmark result? Comments like "it runs smooth as silk!" are completely worthless. Isn't that the theme of this whole thread? :) Gamers with low expectations will be impressed with 20 FPS at 800x600, no AA/AF, and low details, whereas a more serious gamer might not accept anything under 35 FPS, 1280x1024, high details and AA/AF turned on in a given game.

I can't see any way that an iMac G5 could run UT2004 better than an equivalently clocked PowerMac G5, given the same graphics card and RAM in both systems (unless the iMac G5s ship with a new version of OS X which has better video drivers). Until we see some FPS scores and benchmark tests, the jury is out.

[Mav451]

I agree, it has. Despite Jobs' attitude for games, I think they realize they have to have at least some games for Mac. And to be fair, part of the reason Apple didn't support gaming is because they didn't want to turn into Atari and Commodore. But gaming on the mac is basically on life support. Nanosaur and MarbleBlast are just shareware. Nice, but we aren't talking GTA here. Its Yahoo games stuff. We get a handful of games a year. We might get quality titles, but they are always delayed, sometimes up to a year or more. Remember that neverwinter nights was supposed to be simultaneous release? And when we get them, they often run terribly. The only real exception is Blizzard. Apple should be doin' Blizzards laundry.

But the interesting thing I've noticed are the parallels in PC gaming. Back in the day, Apple was a good gaming platform. EA used to be an Apple only company. Then everything shifted to the PC. Now the PC is getting killed by the consoles. We get the ports from PC. But now, the PC gets ports from consoles. And your starting to hear the same complaints about PC gaming that Apple gamers have had for years. Stuff like bad ports, delays, etc. Its kind of interesting to see the old pc fanboys go through the same thing we've gone through.

fyi, console games now make up about 80% of the market. PC's are definately playing second fiddle to the consoles. The trick now is for Apple to get the same ports from consoles...

I dunno, maybe?

The only console game that i can think of is Halo. Personally, i never got into it on the xBox (well, i never liked the xbox that much either), so no biggy.

Doom3? That was a PC first, not the other way around.

Aside from Halo, I can't think of another "console-first, PC-second" game. Most of my favorite games have been PC only (Starcraft, Warcraft II, and CS--guilty pleasure =D).

What's left are the obvious vintage ones (Mario/FFseries 6 and below) which are all available on ROM for play (and yes I own the cartridges). I'm not missing much by not playing on consoles.

[ltgator333]

Ok, let me throw a somewhat off topic question in here being that gamers should know they're video cards- Are there any Macs that have an AGP 110 Pro slot? If so, are they're any cards that utilize it for Mac?
And on the subject... I think game performance or lack thereof is something that Apple has to be aware of, I'd think Apple would at least try to contribute to the next release of OpenGL to help pick this up, as well as possibly do something for this in the next release of OS X.
And to the question posed it seems logical that if your a Mac gamer, and all you play games on is a Mac that yeah your used to the poor(er) performance that games show generally speaking compared to PC's. I mean sure, not every PC is a Athlon64 FX-53 w/ a 6800GT, but were speaking generally here.

[ltgator333]

BTW, the iMac G5 might be better than expected for gaming. I've read something on the IMG forum about how UT2K4 Demo played great on the iMac compared to a similar G5. As in, you can definitely see good frame rates. There's something special in those iMacs... :confused:[/QUOTE]


This might be because of a new chipset from Apple... something that I think they needed to put in the rev. b PMacs...

[oingoboingo]

I dunno, maybe?

The only console game that i can think of is Halo. Personally, i never got into it on the xBox (well, i never liked the xbox that much either), so no biggy.

Doom3? That was a PC first, not the other way around.

Aside from Halo, I can't think of another "console-first, PC-second" game. Most of my favorite games have been PC only (Starcraft, Warcraft II, and CS--guilty pleasure =D).

What's left are the obvious vintage ones (Mario/FFseries 6 and below) which are all available on ROM for play (and yes I own the cartridges). I'm not missing much by not playing on consoles.

Splinter Cell was the first one to come to mind. I think Grand Theft Auto 3 might be another one, but not so sure there.

[vraxtus]

Splinter Cell was the first one to come to mind. I think Grand Theft Auto 3 might be another one, but not so sure there.

Knights of the Old Republic

[vraxtus]

BTW, the iMac G5 might be better than expected for gaming. I've read something on the IMG forum about how UT2K4 Demo played great on the iMac compared to a similar G5. As in, you can definitely see good frame rates. There's something special in those iMacs... :confused:

That means nothing... we don't know anything about the settings that was played on, nor about the details of the setup. I *highly* doubt that it would run better than a comparable G5 PowerMac like mine.

[ltgator333]

Keep in mind please that was a quote from Applekid.. it didn't work right when I posted it but- it COULD make a difference, there are some obvious deficiencies in the chipset used in the PMacs, most notably the FW800 subsystem. If you look at barefeats.com, he mentions that paticular matter pretty regularly, not to mention lesser hiccups in the memory performance, which is still better than previous PMacs, but not as good as it could be.
But no, I seriously doubt a 5200Fx equipped machine is going to light up the world, I think I pointed out in the iMac G5 forum my brother's GeForce 4800Ti scores better aquamark scores than a simalarly equipped system with a 5200Fx, but don't discount the performance gains that can be gained by having a better chipset.
Also, can anyone answer the AGP Pro slot question? Does your machine have a Pro 110 slot?

[benpatient]

that belongs in another thread...it's about as off-topic as could be...

[ltgator333]

Ok, let me throw a somewhat off topic question in here being that gamers should know they're video cards- Are there any Macs that have an AGP 110 Pro slot? If so, are they're any cards that utilize it for Mac?
umm yeah I kinda realize that, but it's a simple question nonetheless

[Lord Blackadder]

In order for us to determine what "low" standards are, we need to know the standards.

I don't want to sound too serious here, but how about some comments on what -low- -average- and -high- standards of gaming constitute in hard numbers (i.e. the usual stuff like resolution and framerates). For example, I see 30 FPS generally bounced around as the minimun acceptable level for "true" gaming.

This leads into the greater question of the definition of "gamer" itself. For the moment I'll assume the following definition of "gamer":

An individual who plays video games as a hobby. They have devloped above-average skill in video games in general. They want to play the newest games, and buy most as soon as they become available. They seek hardware that will give them the highest quality (IN TERMS OF SPECS ON PAPER) gaming experience, and are willing to upgrade/replace their PC more often than other computer users to attain/maintain this experience. To them, anything less than above average to exceptional performance is unnaceptable.

If this fits your idea of "gamer", than I would have to say that as far as Macs are concerned, gaming, with a few exeptions, is subject to low standards. The G5 towers with the most expensive video cards would make the cut in the hardware department, but the smaller number of titles, aftermarket parts, and the issues associated with ports would restrict the platform to aan "also ran" option.

[applekid]

Smells like subjective wishful thinking to me. Did they post frame rates or a benchmark result? Comments like "it runs smooth as silk!" are completely worthless. Isn't that the theme of this whole thread? :) Gamers with low expectations will be impressed with 20 FPS at 800x600, no AA/AF, and low details, whereas a more serious gamer might not accept anything under 35 FPS, 1280x1024, high details and AA/AF turned on in a given game.

I can't see any way that an iMac G5 could run UT2004 better than an equivalently clocked PowerMac G5, given the same graphics card and RAM in both systems (unless the iMac G5s ship with a new version of OS X which has better video drivers). Until we see some FPS scores and benchmark tests, the jury is out.

Read 'em and weep (BTW, this mate is a long time hardcore Mac gamer, so I definitely trust his opinion):

I can assure you it will run Halo pretty darn well. I tried it out at Paris, and on top settings with UT2004, (1.8GHz G5, 1GB RAM) 1680x1050 with *every* setting on apart from FSAA, Asbestos with 8 bots was running at 30-40fps. However, this was only the demo version of UT2004, so hopefully UT2004 retail will be even faster. I doubt it'll be able to manage the same feat as this in Halo, but it should be able to come close to top settings playable performance.

One person added the demo would not allow you to go the highest settings, so it's not the best settings. However we know the retail version has much better performance. I'm prepared to be amazed. I doubt its a new chipset. It's either clocked properly or has some newer drivers. Another OS X update should be on the way, right? It seems like every new Mac means a new update is on the way.

I also want to add, for any of those Mac gamers that consider themselves hardcore and have G5s... Add some more RAM. 512 is becoming minimal. 1 GB is getting good, but not best. What do I recommend? Go with 2 to 4 GB. I was looking at a Mac Halo benchmark for a G5 from a few weeks ago, and the timedemo jumped up about 3 FPS for every 512 MB. Of course, they only went up to 2 GB though. But the more the merrier :) RAM appears to help out in games more than you think.

[macidiot]

I dunno, maybe?

The only console game that i can think of is Halo. Personally, i never got into it on the xBox (well, i never liked the xbox that much either), so no biggy.

Doom3? That was a PC first, not the other way around.

Aside from Halo, I can't think of another "console-first, PC-second" game. Most of my favorite games have been PC only (Starcraft, Warcraft II, and CS--guilty pleasure =D).

What's left are the obvious vintage ones (Mario/FFseries 6 and below) which are all available on ROM for play (and yes I own the cartridges). I'm not missing much by not playing on consoles.

Well, like the other posts mentioned, just off the top of my head, there's Splinter Cell, GTA, KOTOR, Final Fantasy, EA sports, Tony Hawk, Need For Speed series, Prince of Persia(most recent one), Rayman, Medal of Honor(I think)...

Pretty much everything from EA is console first. Your right in that RTS is still computer first, mostly because you need a keyboard/mouse to play them. The few rts that have come out on consoles have not been very good.

[macidiot]

In order for us to determine what "low" standards are, we need to know the standards.

I don't want to sound too serious here, but how about some comments on what -low- -average- and -high- standards of gaming constitute in hard numbers (i.e. the usual stuff like resolution and framerates). For example, I see 30 FPS generally bounced around as the minimun acceptable level for "true" gaming.

This leads into the greater question of the definition of "gamer" itself. For the moment I'll assume the following definition of "gamer":

An individual who plays video games as a hobby. They have devloped above-average skill in video games in general. They want to play the newest games, and buy most as soon as they become available. They seek hardware that will give them the highest quality (IN TERMS OF SPECS ON PAPER) gaming experience, and are willing to upgrade/replace their PC more often than other computer users to attain/maintain this experience. To them, anything less than above average to exceptional performance is unnaceptable.

If this fits your idea of "gamer", than I would have to say that as far as Macs are concerned, gaming, with a few exeptions, is subject to low standards. The G5 towers with the most expensive video cards would make the cut in the hardware department, but the smaller number of titles, aftermarket parts, and the issues associated with ports would restrict the platform to aan "also ran" option.

Well, you seem to describe a "gamer" pretty well. I definitely agree with the "buying the newest games" part. But I think while that may be describing the ideal, the reality is different. By that I mean that a gamer wants the best hardware on paper, like any technoluster. But they are usually constrained by money. As a result they want the best that they can get at a particular pricepoint. Also, I think it is more along the lines of "as long as the games they like to play work well." As a result, a lot of gamers look for expandability. They usually cannot justify an entire new box just for one game. They get what makes sense financially, more ram, better video, better i/o, etc. At some point, some new game is going to make their computer feel like an AppleII. And thats when a gamer will look to upgrade. In other words, gamers don't necessarily upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.

And remember, the people that buy Voodoo and Alienware boxes are not typical gamers. The cost of those machines is prohibitive. I would think that most pc gamers have either built their own or souped up some off the shelf pc. A midrange hp or dell(around 800-1000) makes a fine gaming machine if you have a decent video card and enough ram.

[benpatient]

need for speed usually comes out on PC first, or is a simultaneous release. You should remove it from that list...in fact a lot of NFS games only came out on PC...

[oingoboingo]

Read 'em and weep (BTW, this mate is a long time hardcore Mac gamer, so I definitely trust his opinion):

"I can assure you it will run Halo pretty darn well. I tried it out at Paris, and on top settings with UT2004, (1.8GHz G5, 1GB RAM) 1680x1050 with *every* setting on apart from FSAA, Asbestos with 8 bots was running at 30-40fps. However, this was only the demo version of UT2004, so hopefully UT2004 retail will be even faster. I doubt it'll be able to manage the same feat as this in Halo, but it should be able to come close to top settings playable performance."

One person added the demo would not allow you to go the highest settings, so it's not the best settings. However we know the retail version has much better performance. I'm prepared to be amazed. I doubt its a new chipset. It's either clocked properly or has some newer drivers. Another OS X update should be on the way, right? It seems like every new Mac means a new update is on the way.

OK, this places the 1.8GHz iMac in roughly the same ballpark, or somewhat faster, than a dual 2.0GHz G5 with a Radeon 9600 Pro or a Radeon 9800 Pro. A dual 2GHz G5/Radeon 9800 scores 41.2 FPS at 1024x768 in UT2004 botmatch, with a Radeon 9600 scores 38.7, and with an FX 5200 Ultra scores 19.5 FPS.

http://www.barefeats.com/radsane.html

Either the a) new 1.8GHz iMac has a truly amazing new system controller which can overcome a 200MHz slower core clock speed, a missing 2nd CPU, slower FSB, single channel RAM and an entry level 64MB video card, b) some very impressive new video drivers have been released (which will then be available to all OS X users), c) Barefeats messed up their benchmark, or d) your friend messed up his benchmark.

I too, am prepared to be amazed. Seriously. If the 1.8GHz iMac G5 can perform on a UT2004 botmatch comparably to a dual 2GHz G5 with either a Radeon 9600 or a Radeon 9800, then my current 1.6GHz PowerMac G5 will be on eBay...the second someone can show benchmark scores done with a non-subjective tool like SantaDuck Toolpak.

[vraxtus]

Read 'em and weep (BTW, this mate is a long time hardcore Mac gamer, so I definitely trust his opinion)

A long time hardcore Mac gamer eh? One that's 16 like you? :rolleyes:

It's nice that I have a good 5 years over you, to tell you your friend is full of ****.

I also want to add, for any of those Mac gamers that consider themselves hardcore and have G5s... Add some more RAM. 512 is becoming minimal. 1 GB is getting good, but not best. What do I recommend? Go with 2 to 4 GB. I was looking at a Mac Halo benchmark for a G5 from a few weeks ago, and the timedemo jumped up about 3 FPS for every 512 MB. Of course, they only went up to 2 GB though. But the more the merrier :) RAM appears to help out in games more than you think.

Wow! 3 FPS for every 512MB! Let's go out and spend $150-$200 for a great 6 frames! AWESOME!



I refuse to believe either what you or your "friend" said. Since we don't know if he actually tracked the FPS rate, nor do we know the exact settings on the game or the system, this claim is absolute bull****.

To top that off... if he was "eyeballing" it, there's absolutely NO way for the eye to physically notice anything more than 30FPS.

[applekid]

LOL. ;)

To answer vraxtus, no, this guy is older than me, and lives somewhere in the UK according to his profile. A long time Mac gamer considering he's been with the IMG Forums for two years. But, since you don't believe anything you hear...

And he definitely isn't eyeballing it. He's competent enough to use the console and stat fps. And I told you the settings he used, technically. The demo's settings are probably very different from retail, of course, but the iMac can be demoed at the Paris Expo by regular people.

You and I definitely know a 3 FPS extra in a timedemo is quite a difference. I wouldn't just laugh it off. But, someone performed a timedemo with Halo and some more RAM: http://insidemacgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17066 and got better gains.

Still don't know about Halo though considering the vertex shaders in the GeForceFX 5200 really sucks.

EDIT: I thought about vraxtus said, and I'm offended by the comment about age. I don't appreciate you being a jerk just because you're older. It sounds like you're being the big baby by bringing up age as one of your reasons that "you're-wrong-and-I'm-right." It really doesn't sound like intelligence comes with age after reading what you wrote. I'll say though, we were having a fine conversation up to that point.

[Timelessblur]

well it is very true there are are next to 0 hard core mac gamers.

Gamers are a huge part of the delevment in the hardware for PCs. The top of the line graphic card made by ATI and nVidia are mostly aimed at gamers. Game in general is what will push the home computer to its limits and the easiest way to find out it limits. Gamers also are the ones that help drive down the cost of graphic card to what mortals can afford. The hardware out there that is more midle of the road PC was pushed hard by gamers.

Since mac not only lacks the hard core gamers and Gamers in general apple has not pushed the limits as hard and apple computer delevopment is driven by another forces but sadly they are not pushed very hard to make affordible computer for gamers. just to 2 cents

[vraxtus]

EDIT: I thought about vraxtus said, and I'm offended by the comment about age. I don't appreciate you being a jerk just because you're older. It sounds like you're being the big baby by bringing up age as one of your reasons that "you're-wrong-and-I'm-right." It really doesn't sound like intelligence comes with age after reading what you wrote. I'll say though, we were having a fine conversation up to that point.

My apologies :o

I should point out, however, that I do have a SP 1.8 ghz G5... and my performance was NOWHERE near as good as what your friend describes... that's why I find it VERY hard to believe what he was saying, especially at that resolution. (This was with the stock 5200FX) Since my comp is clocked at a higher FSB, I really cannot nor will not believe what your friend said.

[benpatient]

3 fps per 100 dollars is a TERRIBLE return on your investment.

3 fps is generally within the margin of error in most benchmarks...as in, i ran the benchmark an hour ago and got 3fps slower/faster rate than i did 5 minutes ago, without changing anything.

3fps is, I'll grant you, worth more at 15 fps than it is at 70, and mac gamers are dealing primarily with the former, so it is more relevant than it is for most PC gamers...but come on...

[applekid]

3 fps per 100 dollars is a TERRIBLE return on your investment.

3 fps is generally within the margin of error in most benchmarks...as in, i ran the benchmark an hour ago and got 3fps slower/faster rate than i did 5 minutes ago, without changing anything.

3fps is, I'll grant you, worth more at 15 fps than it is at 70, and mac gamers are dealing primarily with the former, so it is more relevant than it is for most PC gamers...but come on...

How's 5 FPS? The link I posted reports about 5 more FPS in the timedemo average going from 512 MB RAM to 1 GB. I do suppose the costs outweigh benefits. But, those people that could use a small boost, I think it's well worth it. Also, thinking about the future, since the PowerMac G5s can be expanded to 8 GB, upgrades with the RAM alone may be quite helpful way down the road, potentially.

And, vraxtus, apology accepted. :) I do understand it's hard to believe. Even I'm still skeptical, but not as much as yourself. But, I still do think it isn't too farfetched. I think it'll fit nicely with the G5 benchmarks and have some good performance even with its GeForceFX 5200 Ultra. I'm feeling there's some new drivers on the way or the iMac has some better performance with its newer hardware, as oingoboingo has hypothesized.

But, we'll just have to wait.

[Converted2Truth]

3-5fps is like Tylenol for a migraine. It helps ease the pain, but not enough to make you feel better about your situation.

[benpatient]

applekid, i think you'll find that after 1 gb or possibly 1.5 gb, the rate of return on adding more RAM will drop off to nill. The games don't use THAT much ram, even on a Mac, and once they are full-up on what they ask for, any gains that would be had will stop completely. I have 2.5gb in my dual 1.8 and performace is considerably and noticeably worse than that of my 600 dollar year-and-a-half old PC...to the tune of probably 20-30 fps difference on most things (halo, UT2k3, etc)

[Mav451]

3-5fps is like Tylenol for a migraine. It helps ease the pain, but not enough to make you feel better about your situation.

What an appropriate and honest quote...especially for those who have experienced migraines. Fortunately, acupuncture has helped considerably :D

[applekid]

applekid, i think you'll find that after 1 gb or possibly 1.5 gb, the rate of return on adding more RAM will drop off to nill. The games don't use THAT much ram, even on a Mac, and once they are full-up on what they ask for, any gains that would be had will stop completely. I have 2.5gb in my dual 1.8 and performace is considerably and noticeably worse than that of my 600 dollar year-and-a-half old PC...to the tune of probably 20-30 fps difference on most things (halo, UT2k3, etc)

I see. Enlightening.

[vraxtus]

applekid, i think you'll find that after 1 gb or possibly 1.5 gb, the rate of return on adding more RAM will drop off to nill. The games don't use THAT much ram, even on a Mac, and once they are full-up on what they ask for, any gains that would be had will stop completely. I have 2.5gb in my dual 1.8 and performace is considerably and noticeably worse than that of my 600 dollar year-and-a-half old PC...to the tune of probably 20-30 fps difference on most things (halo, UT2k3, etc)


This is very very true, unfortunately. The marginal returns both for money and to FPS rates are very very slim. Sadly the truth is that most games are simply CPU and GPU bound and RAM in most cases doesn't affect much gameplay performance at all. On top of that the 3 or so FPS applekid describes is yes in fact within the 5% marginal error rate for game performance benchmarks... so what you could be seeing indeed is a benching anomoly rather than a true gain from more RAM.

[Sharewaredemon]

jigglelishis's
computer specs are
1.4GHz eMac, 1GB RAM, 8x Superdrive, 1 Evil Microsoft Mouse
i didn't know there was a 1.4 gigahertz emac
i just bought mine and it's 1.25
wierd they must have updated it without any of us knowing

maybe it's a typo

[applekid]

jigglelishis's
computer specs are
1.4GHz eMac, 1GB RAM, 8x Superdrive, 1 Evil Microsoft Mouse
i didn't know there was a 1.4 gigahertz emac
i just bought mine and it's 1.25
wierd they must have updated it without any of us knowing

maybe it's a typo

Overclocked.

[gekko513]

So sad...




Exactly... that goes to my point of low standards right there. I mean really, who the hell plays NANOSAUR with an unheathly obsession. Most popular and graphically intense games nowadays are the ones people want... not a washed up child's game. It's sad to see that Macs are performing so badly compared to their PC counterparts.

I think you should realise that not everyone likes first person shooters. For some reason you're not "allowed" to call yourself a gamer in web-forums unless you play the graphically most demanding first person shooters.

You need to widen your horizon a bit. There are lots of people who prefer games similar to Myst, Worms-Blast, Sims, Ray-Man or Civilization over Doom.

Edit: Maybe I should add that I'm not exactly thrilled about the total optimization of software and hardware for games on the Mac platform, either. But that's just reality, no one will use a lot of resources on such a small niche market (high end Mac gaming).

[vraxtus]

I think you should realise that not everyone likes first person shooters. For some reason you're not "allowed" to call yourself a gamer in web-forums unless you play the graphically most demanding first person shooters.

You need to widen your horizon a bit. There are lots of people who prefer games similar to Myst, Worms-Blast, Sims, Ray-Man or Civilization over Doom.

Edit: Maybe I should add that I'm not exactly thrilled about the total optimization of software and hardware for games on the Mac platform, either. But that's just reality, no one will use a lot of resources on such a small niche market (high end Mac gaming).


I think you need to read closer before you post dribble like this... First nowhere did I say that I was limiting this to FPS games ONLY. Secondly, there have been other threads highlighting other games, such as SimCity 4, that won't even PLAY on a G5. Third, I'm currently trying the WoW beta and frankly though I thought the performance initially was fine I've been steadily disappointed as time has gone by. Do not forget that FRAMES PER SECOND exists on ANY 3D game... which is practically EVERY game available now...