HALF LIFE 2. . .OK IM CONVINCED - Page 3

Ydiss · 07-21-2003, 12:41 AM

[quote="Sgt Stryker":52abc]
a better question is will I have the money to buy a new comp to run the thing, somehow I don't think my 1.5 GHz processor will handle it biggrin:[/quote:52abc]

I'm not totally convinced of this but the claimed minimum specs are 1ghz CPU and 32bit gfx card. Which is very reasonable.

Certainly, to run it at high performance, you (and myself) will have to upgrade, but I think 1.5ghz will be ok to at least play it. Depends on Valve's performance settings.

Whilst the game does use things like bump-mapping and dynamic light mapping, it's not going for the kind of CPU hungry performance D3 is going for, by a long shot.

However, looking at some of the big open areas in the demo (most of them putting any scernario you've seen in MOH SP to shame) I can't imagine it running smoothly on my machine (1.67Hgz Athlon XP).

This is the only doubt that I have about their claims. Time will tell.

Cool Fool · 07-21-2003, 12:55 AM

[quote="Stinger_Dude":32523]Natural Selection is a great game. Far more addictive than CS in my opinion. I was hooked on that thing for hours.[/quote:32523]

Ja. I love that mod, I barely play any other mods than that.
Can't wait until 2.0 verison of it comes out on July 31st.

Akuma · 07-21-2003, 05:53 AM

[quote="Sgt Stryker":c6ddf]a better question is will I have the money to buy a new comp to run the thing, somehow I don't think my 1.5 GHz processor will handle it biggrin:[/quote:c6ddf]
They said it can be turned down to run on a 700Mhz processor with a 64MB video card.

pest · 07-21-2003, 06:25 AM

[quote=Akuma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by "Sgt Stryker":89991

a better question is will I have the money to buy a new comp to run the thing, somehow I don't think my 1.5 GHz processor will handle it biggrin:

They said it can be turned down to run on a 700Mhz processor with a 64MB video card.[/quote:89991]

Yeah, you can, but it would be a shame to make a great game like HL2 look as crappy as MOHAA.

Ydiss · 07-21-2003, 06:50 AM

[quote=pest]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akuma

Quote:

Originally Posted by "Sgt Stryker":fcc56

a better question is will I have the money to buy a new comp to run the thing, somehow I don't think my 1.5 GHz processor will handle it biggrin:

They said it can be turned down to run on a 700Mhz processor with a 64MB video card.

Yeah, you can, but it would be a shame to make a great game like HL2 look as crappy as MOHAA.[/quote:fcc56]

I totally agree.

But, wouldn't it be nice if that were true?

Despite the fact that you'd miss out on the awesome graphics, you'd still have all of the innovation so far as AI and source code are concerned. It would be fairly unprecidented if they actually allowed users to reverse engineer the graphics so far that it works on 2 generation old systems.

If they manage to make this game playable for 1Ghz machines (FPS 25+ consistently), even though you may have to sacrifice all the flashy effects and details (and maybe have some hefty clip-plane) it will be great.

It just means that you will have to spend money on hardwear to see the flashy stuff, rather than have to spend the money to play the game at all (a la MoH:AA).

pest · 07-21-2003, 07:01 AM

I see an expensive video card in my near future. The old ti4200 isnt going to cut it for HL2, Doom III or even halo.

$269 and up for a 9800pro 128

$356 and up for the fx5900 128

ed:

Time to start saving so it can be installed by then.

Akuma · 07-21-2003, 07:22 AM

Don't get the FX.

pest · 07-21-2003, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akuma

Don't get the FX.

I am probably not going to, but for money reasons mostly.

What do you have against the (arguebly) baddest video card on the planet?

Akuma · 07-21-2003, 07:36 AM

It costs a lot more than the 9800 but is only slightly faster. Nvidia cheated on all the benchmarking tests. 256MB of graphic memory won't be needed for along time.(Doom3 only uses 90MB) It isn't the baddest card in the world, just the biggest waste of money.

pest · 07-21-2003, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akuma

It costs a lot more than the 9800 but is only slightly faster. Nvidia cheated on all the benchmarking tests. 256MB of graphic memory won't be needed for along time.(Doom3 only uses 90MB) It isn't the baddest card in the world, just the biggest waste of money.

It does cost more. No arguement there.

Nvidia did cheat, but it wastn too long ago, ATI got accused of the very same thing. And its irrelavant, they cheated on 3d mark scores which are synthetic anyways. I typically only look at benchmarks from real games.

It might not be the better value, and that is probably why I will buy the 9800pro, but it currently is the baddest video card on the planet, but not by enough to justify the extra price.

Akuma · 07-21-2003, 08:14 AM

Oh yeah, plus it takes an extra PCI slot, its really loud, and AA and AF are disabled at higher resolutions.

Yes, ATI cheated too, by 2%. Nvidia cheated by 23%.

pest · 07-21-2003, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akuma

Oh yeah, plus it takes an extra PCI slot, its really loud, and AA and AF are disabled at higher resolutions.

Yes, ATI cheated too, by 2%. Nvidia cheated by 23%.

Its not loud. You are thinking about the 5600ultra pos thing nvidia brought out to fight the 9700pro. I think I heard that it runs at about 40db. Which isnt great, but its no louder than the ati. And that pci slot is a no-no to use anyway, and even without it, I still have 4 empty ones. No loss there.

Dont get me wrong, I will probably get the ATI, and I agree that it is a much better card for the money. But if you were told you had to build the baddest gaming box possible, with no regard for cost, the nvidia would be there, not the ati. At least until someone brings out a new set of benchmarks that say otherwise. freak:

pest · 07-21-2003, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akuma

Oh yeah, plus it takes an extra PCI slot, its really loud, and AA and AF are disabled at higher resolutions.

Yes, ATI cheated too, by 2%. Nvidia cheated by 23%.

Its not loud. You are thinking about the 5600ultra pos thing nvidia brought out to fight the 9700pro. I think I heard that it runs at about 40db. Which isnt great, but its no louder than the ati. And that pci slot is a no-no to use anyway, and even without it, I still have 4 empty ones. No loss there.

Dont get me wrong, I will probably get the ATI, and I agree that it is a much better card for the money. But if you were told you had to build the baddest gaming box possible, with no regard for cost, the nvidia would be there, not the ati. At least until someone brings out a new set of benchmarks that say otherwise. freak:

Ydiss · 07-21-2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pest

I see an expensive video card in my near future. The old ti4200 isnt going to cut it for HL2, Doom III or even halo.

$269 and up for a 9800pro 128

$356 and up for the fx5900 128

ed:

Time to start saving so it can be installed by then.

So long as you have a 64mb gfx card or higher you won't need to upgrade it to play HL2 (I'm not speaking for D3, that is being designed for the next gen gfx cards anyway, so that's a given).

The biggest factor will be the cpu you have. It always is. You can have a shit-hot Gfx card, memory and whatever, but if you don't have a sweet cpu then they'll count for nothing.

First upgrade for any HL2 users should be to get Athlon XP+ or P4 technology Mboards and Cpu.

I made the mistake of upgrading my voodoo3 16mb first when I got MoH:AA - It did nothing (maybe 5-10 FPS boost, that's all). It was when I upgraded my Duron 700Mhz to my Athlon xp2000+ that MoH started to fly and I'll bet it still would have shifted pixels faster even if I still had the Voodoo3.

That's my advice: If you have a geforce3 or 4, don't upgrade that until you upgrade your mboard and cpu - Valve are not creating this game by the end of this year to only have it sold to the small minority of PC users who can afford top-end gfx cards.

It is being designed to work on Gforce3-4 and equivalent architecture. In that sense, having gfx cards that are more powerful will not make a difference (Like geforce4 didn't make a difference to MOH over geforce3, because Geforce4 wasn't in existence when MoH was being developed).

For those who already have XP2000+ or better architecture then sure, go ahead and upgrade your gfx card, but I honestly don't think it will be necessary for HL2.

Edit: I stress the word "necessary" - Having a nice new gfx is always nice, if you can afford it and I'm sure with a nice cpu it will benefit HL2 in the long-run - I just don't think it's going to be needed.

ED · 07-21-2003, 09:36 AM

I'll not be upgrading my 4600 for some time, and I'll see if my XP 1600 can handle Half Life. It not its possible it's time to plunk down 80 bucks for a new mobo/cpu combo. I dont expect this game to COMPLETELY kill the setup I have now. I'm thinking it'll run pretty damn fine.