# Game system requirements getting too high??



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nascar 2003: G4/733 -- but *is* dual processor savvy, and they say a dual dual G4/500 would be fine







Same specs for Nascar 2002.

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

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

Kelly Slater Pro Surfer: G4/700.

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

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

Command & Conquer: *G4/1GHz*

Call Of Duty: G3/700.

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

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

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









No One Lives Forever II: G4/700

Alien vs. Predator II: G4/700

Nanosaur II: G4/700

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









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


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

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

My two favourite games, and no dice. 

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


----------



## Troutmagnet (Jul 30, 2002)

...and this, my friends, is why we have PS2, Gamecube and Xbox.

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

'nuff said.


----------



## Troutmagnet (Jul 30, 2002)

Do you guys realize that 21 of the 24 games you listed are/were either:

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

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

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


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I think that it's been mentioned many times before, the best systems to play games on, between Macs and consoles, are on Macs.

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


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

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


And watch the Mac gaming platform disappear. If only users of recent Macs should be using Macs for gaming, there would be far from enough users to support this shaky industry.

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


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

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


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

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


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i would much prefer to play games on my mac but it would be too damn expensive to keep up with system requirements.

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

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

btw, Vice City rocks!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have Tiger Woods 2003 and play it on both my eMac G4 700Mhz and my Al Powerbook 1 Ghz.

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

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

Cheers


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

real time strategy games are better on computers. you would need a controller with 40 buttons to make up what is lost without the keyboard mouse combo.

i remember homeworld was pretty awesome.


----------



## Eidetic (Oct 6, 2003)

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

too bad they never brought out counter strike for mac


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

> real time strategy games are better on computers. you would need a controller with 40 buttons to make up what is lost without the keyboard mouse combo.


So it makes sense that Blizzard already releases everything on Mac and Windows simultaneously and only later on the console


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

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

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


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,

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

James


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

I've played some pretty cool games on older macs, like Unreal, Quake, Tomb Raider III, Bugdom, Nanosaur, etc....

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


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

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

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


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Yup. The kids are the way to expand marketshare. They're the ones who grow into adults making business decisions and platform choices on a larger scale.

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

See ya in 2005.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

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


----------



## ekcondon (Jun 9, 2002)

I agree with this whole topic, they are getting rediculous. At least mac games do not need more than 1 GHz to run, my brother just bought a game tonight, that MINIMUM! requires a 1.5GHz P4, 512 MB RAM, 3 GB HD Space!







, It's just insane what games need to run these days.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Hey, I play lotsa games that do not have really high system requirements. But, the trend upwards is a worrying one, given how the G4 platform has pretty well reached the end of the line, yet it'll be a while before the consumer Macs get a real kick in the pants.


----------



## Todd (Oct 14, 2002)

*Games are becoming bloatware*

I'm 35 and have been playing video games since the Atari 2600. Games are becoming bloatware, in my opinion. Graphics, graphics and graphics good for nothing but sexy, still screen pics for glossy magazine ads. Play the game for an hour and you don't notice them anymore. But you do start to notice the missing gameplay - the unquantifiable stuff that makes one game endlessly fun or another game just a bookshelf dust collector. A million more vertex vector pixel shader polygon blinkenlights won't make a boring game less boring.

For wow-factor in games, I honestly think sound is more important than graphics. I read once of a comparison - two home theatre set-ups, one with a premium TV and mediocre sound system and the other with the reverse. The set-up with the premium sound was judged "better" by most people. I think the same applies to games. Great sound effects do more to keep me "in the game" than yet-another video card magic trick.

Beyond wow-factor, what I think is missing from games and the thing I'm continually surprised and dissapointed that it isn't happening is improvements to gaming AIs. The improvements are there - Halo is a good example. But with the level of horsepower available in today's computers I would expect games should be able to play with the illusion that you're competing with a human opponent. That's different from being a perfect opponent who can press buttons faster than you can think - an irritating cheat that games sometimes use to "increase the skill" of a computer opponent. I'm interested in playing against a computer opponent that fools me into thinking it's human. It would have strengths, weaknesses, habits, preferences and a playing style like a human would. An enhanced version of Starcraft or Myth that had 100 different AI opponent personalities who all played a little differently like 100 different human opponents would - that would rock my gaming world more than the latest trick from ATI or NVidia.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Why is a thread, dated 11 months old, being revived?


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

*I would love to be able to play...*

Doom 3, but there is no way I'm spending over 3 K for a game. It requires a 2.5 G5.

Sorry, but I just picked up Command and Conquer over Christmas, and it plays just fine on my dual MDD


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

The problem stems from the PC side where the systems are cheaper and the minimum requirements on some of those games is on the bottom end of the technology curve. As much as I would like to play the latest games on my Mac there is no way I ever will be able to afford it hence the reason why I`ll never be rid of my PC. But I do agree that good game play can easily substitute the drop dead looking graphics in some of the latest games, I`m still impressed with the gameplay in games like Zelda and Super Mario Brothers on the NES.

Laterz


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I think a lot of the reasons why game requirements are due to one (or more) of three reasons:

1) Unlike a console, there is no "common" ground to shoot for with respect to specs -- (consumer) computers are virtually obsolete the minute they are released which leads the developer to generally believe their game's requirements will be eventually met by the time of completion (give or take a few months);

2) Trying to remain cutting edge -- games with the most groundbreaking graphics/game-play; and

3) Laziness, tight deadlines, or lack of money -- it's clear some developers try to push out a quality product that will play nicely on as many desktops as possible, but money and time can hinder optimization... or sometimes the developer just doesn't care and wants to get the game out A.S.A.P.

That being said -- consoles still have a way to go before they can compete with the desktop gaming market. But they're getting closer.


----------



## mikelr (Sep 6, 2004)

1.5 Ghz G5!! :yikes: 
that is way too high for doom 3 :yikes:


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> Ghz G5!! :yikes:
> that is way too high for doom 3 :yikes:


 Not really the minimum requirements for DoomIII for a PC is a P4/Athlon running at 1.5Ghz.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

I remember being kind of disappointed at the performance of Warcraft III when it came out. But I had almost as much fun playing it on low settings.
Currently I'm replaying Final Fantasy VII on an old PC which I got free from work, and Metroid Prime, Zelda Windwaker and Dead to Rights on GameCube which I got for Christmas.
Consoles are great because they're instant-on, they don't stutter, ghost or have low refresh rate, they come with a good controller which all the games are designed specifically for, and they're cheap, which gives you more money to spend on the actual games.
The Mac Mini will get destroyed in gaming performance, and will get all sorts of flak from gamers in forums everywhere, but it'll also get good gaming reviews from parents of little kids because of usability, security and stability.
G5 PowerMacs are the Mac gaming platform of the future, and if Apple treats their third-party developers well, it could theoretically outshine PCs, considering that PowerPC is becoming the main choice for consoles. On the other hand, AMD has much more of a focus on gaming than Apple does, and they will do whatever it takes to win and preserve their great reputation.


----------



## Pylonman (Aug 16, 2004)

I didn't buy my Mac to play games, that's what Pee Cees are for. But, it is nice when you got a hour left in your day to play your fav game.

I'm a big Medal of Honour: Spearhead fan. But, there's a level on Spearhead that is way to taxing on my eMac video card (half track crashing down the mtn) I've tried everything and I can't squeeze anymore frame rates out of game. (I didn't know at the time of purchase I couldn't upgrade the video card ) So basicly, I haven't gotten past that level and I only play online multiplayer version. Too bad. I wish I could continue past that level.


----------

