The reason I don't game on a Mac

[VI™]

The new GTX 680 is working quite well in my PC. I only had to purchase the card to replace my GTX 295 and didn't have to buy a new computer.

But I will be purchasing the new Baldur's gate on either the mini or the iPad. Heck, maybe even both. I do need a new iPad though.

No offense to the hardcore Apple guys, but you just can't beat playing games in 2560x1600 resolution with all settings at max on a 30" monitor. It's magical. With that being said, all my photography and business software are on the OS X side of things.

 

[roadbloc]

Who cares? I game on a PC too.

 

[VI™]

Image

Umadbro

Who cares? I game on a PC too.

Are you using a GTX 680 too?

 

[0098386]

I'm running the games I play (tf2, l4d, sf4) at max settings, 2560x1440 on a 27" iMac. It looks amazing.

Is this the big whoop thread?

 

[Hastings101]

It's magical.

Would you say it's magical and revolutionary? Only being magical is just not good enough.

 

[MRU]

The new GTX 680 is working quite well in my PC.

And most mac pro users can do the same as long as they intend to game in Windows.


And why is it only working 'quite well' ? .... apart from the obvious answer that it being 'a pc'... ?






____________

The reason I don't game on a Mac..

I have a 13" penis and i'm too busy waving it around to everyone with a real air of supremacy.

The chicks find it much more interesting than a GTX 680..

But I will be buying Bauldur's Gate for my iPad. I'll just use my dick as a glorified iPad stand.......






Sorry is this not basically what all this thread is for ? superfluous boasting ? Or did I miss the point somewhere ?

 

[chrisvee]

Would you say it's magical and revolutionary? Only being magical is just not good enough.

Don't you mean resolutionary?

 

[roadbloc]

Are you using a GTX 680 too?

No. I'm on a Nvidia GeForce GT 430. Bit dated now but can still run the latest games on medium to high settings.

 

[marzer]

No offense to the hardcore Apple guys, but you just can't beat playing games in 2560x1600 resolution with all settings at max on a 30" monitor. It's magical.

I think it's magical to game in 2560x1440 resolution with all settings maxed or near maxed on my 27" iMac. Which I do often.

Ooh! I hate these trolling posts inaccurately denouncing Mac as a viable gaming platform.

It...makes...me...so...mad!...AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

HULK SMASH!!!!

 

[VI™]

I'm running the games I play (tf2, l4d, sf4) at max settings, 2560x1440 on a 27" iMac. It looks amazing.

Is this the big whoop thread?

Yes. Yes it is.

Meh, try some newer games. Those were running at max on the GTX 295 I had which is something like 4 years old or so. The Source engine isn't very graphics intesive compared to newer games out there.

Would you say it's magical and revolutionary? Only being magical is just not good enough.

And revolutionary!

And most mac pro users can do the same as long as they intend to game in Windows.


And why is it only working 'quite well' ? .... apart from the obvious answer that it being 'a pc'... ?






____________

The reason I don't game on a Mac..

I have a 13" penis and i'm too busy waving it around to everyone with a real air of supremacy.

The chicks find it much more interesting than a GTX 680..

But I will be buying Bauldur's Gate for my iPad. I'll just use my dick as a glorified iPad stand.......






Sorry is this not basically what all this thread is for ? superfluous boasting ? Or did I miss the point somewhere ?

Because nothing will still run Crysis at full settings with a decent frame rate. Maybe 4 GTX 680s...Hmmmm, must get more photography jobs...

No. I'm on a Nvidia GeForce GT 430. Bit dated now but can still run the latest games on medium to high settings.

Resolution is a real killer on performance though. I had Crysis at 1920xwhetever on my GTX 295 and it was running at mostly max settings just fine but when bumped up to 2560x1600, it was poo. It doesn't have the most optimized graphics engine in the world either, so that's a big hinderance there. Everything looks prettier with max AA settings and all the effects turned up to 11.

I think it's magical to game in 2560x1440 resolution with all settings maxed or near maxed on my 27" iMac. Which I do often.

Ooh! I hate these trolling posts inaccurately denouncing Mac as a viable gaming platform.

It...makes...me...so...mad!...AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

HULK SMASH!!!!

What games? What framerates? It's not that it's viable, it's just not ideal. What happens when you need a new graphics card?

That's why I've always had PCs and Macs; I can have a power house gaming system and then I can use the Mac for my photography business. The upgrade was only $500 and I didn't have to get a new monitor.

I've been holding out for a while for the Nvidia 600 series cards and the wait has paid off, that is all.

 

[bungiefan89]

No offense to the hardcore Apple guys, but you just can't beat playing games in 2560x1600 resolution with all settings at max on a 30" monitor. It's magical. With that being said, all my photography and business software are on the OS X side of things.

My iMac used to be able to play Skyrim at that resolution. But then I took a 1.5 patch to the knee... (couldn't resist) and now for whatever reason, the game plays much better at 1600x900. But it's still a fantastically sharp resolution. No pixelation at all.

I think the new graphics cards are kind of overkill for today's games. Until we get some truly better graphics, like dynamic destructible environments or spectacular lighting effects like we see in Crysis 2 as standard, I don't see a point for upgrading to such hardware... unless you're doing heavy graphics design work.

 

[marzer]

Prehensile!

What games? What frame rates? It's not that it's viable, it's just not ideal.

On my old white cased iMacs (2005 & 2006) I played BF1942, COD1/2 and BF 2142 at high res/settings. On the 2008 24" iMac I ran COD4 with no problems, high settings.

My current machine is the 27" iMac (2010) and I'm currently playing Assassins Creed 2 & Brotherhood, and Duke Nukem Forever, all set at max res and high to max settings. I'm also playing Splinter Cell Conviction, I'm pretty sure I've got full res and high settings. BTW, all these games mentioned were Mac OS X native.

On the Boot Camp side I have tried COD MW2, & currently MW3, on max res/max settings with no noticeable issues. However, I usually run them under Crossover just cause I'm too lazy to reboot, so yes I have to crank the settings down some.

So yes, I would disagree, Mac is an ideal gaming platform.

What happens when you need a new graphics card?

Well, all I can say is: stay in school, work hard, don't do drugs, and invest you $$ wisely and someday you too can be comfortable enough that dropping $2k every year or two for a new system ain't no big 'thang

[Big 'thang like my 13"...umm...14" {yeah, that's the ticket!} PREHENSILE pe-nis. That keeps me preoccupied with "the-lay-deez", such that I barely have sufficient time to invest in gaming. Thus rendering the need to have a, bleeding, edge framerate...Moot!]

 

[VI™]

On my old white cased iMacs (2005 & 2006) I played BF1942, COD1/2 and BF 2142 at high res/settings. On the 2008 24" iMac I ran COD4 with no problems, high settings.

My current machine is the 27" iMac (2010) and I'm currently playing Assassins Creed 2 & Brotherhood, and Duke Nukem Forever, all set at max res and high to max settings. I'm also playing Splinter Cell Conviction, I'm pretty sure I've got full res and high settings. BTW, all these games mentioned were Mac OS X native.

On the Boot Camp side I have tried COD MW2, & currently MW3, on max res/max settings with no noticeable issues. However, I usually run them under Crossover just cause I'm too lazy to reboot, so yes I have to crank the settings down some.

So yes, I would disagree, Mac is an ideal gaming platform.



Well, all I can say is: stay in school, work hard, don't do drugs, and invest you $$ wisely and someday you too can be comfortable enough that dropping $2k every year or two for a new system ain't no big 'thang

[Big 'thang like my 13"...umm...14" {yeah, that's the ticket!} PREHENSILE pe-nis. That keeps me preoccupied with "the-lay-deez", such that I barely have sufficient time to invest in gaming. Thus rendering the need to have a, bleeding, edge framerate...Moot!]

Those games aren't really graphic intensive. The new Battlefield would be. And how does OS X deal with DX11 games?

Either way, you'll get higher frame rates in Windows most of the time and you'll get higher frame rates with better cards. You just won't notice it until you're playing games that really need the power.

 

[marzer]

Those games aren't really graphic intensive.

Oops. Forgive me, didn't realize I was talking to THE authority. But MW3 would beg otherwise.

Anyhow, my games look and play great in max res on my sweet, sweet 27" iMac screen. And when it begins to fail me in that respect, I'll kick it to the curb and get me a new iMac

 

[0098386]

Yes. Yes it is.

Meh, try some newer games. Those were running at max on the GTX 295 I had which is something like 4 years old or so. The Source engine isn't very graphics intesive compared to newer games out there.

Source isn't too intensive, but I don't enjoy games like Call of Duty, Battlefield etc. I picked up one of the COD games in a Steam sale just to see what I was missing out on, and it ran maxed out (AA set to 2 and not my usual 4 though) at native res. I don't play games just because they're new, but because I love playing them.

Deus Ex, Skyrim, they all run great but I don't play much of them.


FWIW I don't run games on OSX. I don't like its mouse acceleration or lack of controller drivers - I use a Logitech G27 wheel, Hori Fight Stick and PS3+xbox 360 controllers.



Incidentally I find a lot of modern games look awful at these high resolutions. It really shows how low resolution the textures are, and highlights low poly models. I'm currently playing Rayman Origins (third time after PS3 and Vita, love it) at 2560x1440 and, well it looks horrible up close and with so much filtering.
Same with Crysis 2 and that COD game I have, it just looks so poor! Aided only by resolution independent post processing. I'm sure they look great at 720 or 1080 resolutions.

 

[Ace134blue]

Oops. Forgive me, didn't realize I was talking to THE authority. But MW3 would beg otherwise.

uhm MW3 looks like trash..

 

[marzer]

uhm MW3 looks like trash..

Hmm, it looks great on my iMac. You probably are running it on a POS windows box. You should get yourself a decent machine.

 

[VI™]

Oops. Forgive me, didn't realize I was talking to THE authority. But MW3 would beg otherwise.

Anyhow, my games look and play great in max res on my sweet, sweet 27" iMac screen. And when it begins to fail me in that respect, I'll kick it to the curb and get me a new iMac

MW3 is based on a heavily modified version of the Quake III engine. It's been modified by IW as their own, but that's the underlying engine. It was developed for MW in 2005 and the engine has been modified since the platform has now been moved to a new engine at all. Eventually an engine will get dated, look at source.

I'm not "THE" authority and I never claimed to be, but anyone with a bit of knowledge of how the games were created can tell you that a certain graphics engine can only take you so far before it needs to be replaced by a new one or overhauled completely to show any real improvements on newer generation games. There's been no huge improvements of graphics in the COD series since MW. The same can't be said about Battlefield if you look at the difference between graphics engines from the BF 2 era, to the BF:BC era, to the new BF3 title.

Source isn't too intensive, but I don't enjoy games like Call of Duty, Battlefield etc. I picked up one of the COD games in a Steam sale just to see what I was missing out on, and it ran maxed out (AA set to 2 and not my usual 4 though) at native res. I don't play games just because they're new, but because I love playing them.

Deus Ex, Skyrim, they all run great but I don't play much of them.


FWIW I don't run games on OSX. I don't like its mouse acceleration or lack of controller drivers - I use a Logitech G27 wheel, Hori Fight Stick and PS3+xbox 360 controllers.



Incidentally I find a lot of modern games look awful at these high resolutions. It really shows how low resolution the textures are, and highlights low poly models. I'm currently playing Rayman Origins (third time after PS3 and Vita, love it) at 2560x1440 and, well it looks horrible up close and with so much filtering.
Same with Crysis 2 and that COD game I have, it just looks so poor! Aided only by resolution independent post processing. I'm sure they look great at 720 or 1080 resolutions.

You must be sitting to close

I guess it depends on the games and you can really tell a difference by not having max AA settings on. I'll have to poke around to find some new titles worth cranking up. I still haven't downloaded ME:3 yet, so I'm hoping that one's pretty. I also want to get The Witcher 2.

Hmm, it looks great on my iMac. You probably are running it on a POS windows box. You should get yourself a decent machine.

Wow man, why the hate? My POS window box is one day going to retire and replace the POS WHS box as my server on which my POS Mac Mini runs my photography business apps and entertainment side of things for which my POS Macbook, which is soon to be replaced by a POS MBP once they're released, does all my mobile needs for that and mobile gaming.

They all serve the purpose I use them for and do it well, so if one of them is a POS, they must all be.

 

[0098386]

MW3 is based on a heavily modified version of the Quake III engine. It's been modified by IW as their own, but that's the underlying engine. It was developed for MW in 2005 and the engine has been modified since the platform has now been moved to a new engine at all. Eventually an engine will get dated, look at source.

I'm not "THE" authority and I never claimed to be, but anyone with a bit of knowledge of how the games were created can tell you that a certain graphics engine can only take you so far before it needs to be replaced by a new one or overhauled completely to show any real improvements on newer generation games. There's been no huge improvements of graphics in the COD series since MW. The same can't be said about Battlefield if you look at the difference between graphics engines from the BF 2 era, to the BF:BC era, to the new BF3 title.

It's as related to Id Tech 3 as Portal 2 is to Quake. Id made the foundations to lots of engines, lots of modern games are running on engines that originally began a very long time ago.

COD is deliberately aimed at the lowest common denominator in the console market and built to run at 60fps. They designed it to look as good as they could on a very tight resource budget. That's why it looks bad, not because of their 'old engine', because it isn't an old engine.

 

[the8thark]

No offense to the hardcore Apple guys, but you just can't beat playing games in 2560x1600 resolution with all settings at max on a 30" monitor.

So? You think up the ass graphics and 3D is the only way to play a game?
Thanks fine.

But . . . . most of us would say fun is more important. And some of the most fun games didn't have HD and 3D graphics. But they were some very deep games. Well worth playing.

If you only want to play up the ass 3D graphic games you'll get some nice games but you'll also miss out on a whole load of other just as fun games.

 

[VI™]

So? You think up the ass graphics and 3D is the only way to play a game?
Thanks fine.

But . . . . most of us would say fun is more important. And some of the most fun games didn't have HD and 3D graphics. But they were some very deep games. Well worth playing.

If you only want to play up the ass 3D graphic games you'll get some nice games but you'll also miss out on a whole load of other just as fun games.

It's not the only way, but I'd rather enjoy a new fun game with "up the ass" graphics by playing on a large monitor with high resolution and all settings at max rather than having to scale the resolution and all the settings back because the computer I'm using wants to give me an fps of 1.

And if graphics weren't important, we'd all still be playing intellivision.

 

[luke.mac1]

I'm running the games I play (tf2, l4d, sf4) at max settings, 2560x1440 on a 27" iMac. It looks amazing.

Is this the big whoop thread?

I haven't found a game my 27" iMac won't play at pretty much full graphics settings yet either!

Also...
http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/garth-marenghis-darkplace/53307

Couldn't help myself!

 

[Dweez]

Thanks so much for sharing.

 

[Plutonius]

Who cares? I game on a PC too.

Who cares, I only game on a Mac and run Mac native games .

 

[the8thark]

It's not the only way, but I'd rather enjoy a new fun game with "up the ass" graphics by playing on a large monitor with high resolution and all settings at max rather than having to scale the resolution and all the settings back because the computer I'm using wants to give me an fps of 1.

And if graphics weren't important, we'd all still be playing intellivision.

Graphics are important. But they have differing levels of importance for each person. One person could say anything less then HD is unacceptable. While someone else can be ok with a low res indie game.

This makes neither person right or wrong. It just shows that different people want different things from games. And also why HD games and low res games still both have a place in today's gaming market.