18 réponses à ce sujet

[Cpl_Krunch]

Is there any work around to allow game to play for a desktop video card ATI X300 or am I just going to have to buy a new video card?  Thanks in advance!

[CrustyCat]

Sorry, but that doesn't even come close.

[cormagus77]

Hi all,

I'm having the same issue: an ATI mobility-radeon x300 (fully capable of running NWN2-SoZ btw) (256mb), that isn't accepted by DAO to run the game. I'm not going to buy a new computer for the next couple of months...so:

Is there really no way to make the game at least try running with this graphics card, instead of refusing the unsupported graphic-card beforehand????

[Gorath Alpha]

The old Radeon 9600 SE that gave birth to the X300 had no SM-3 shaders at all, and this game uses those throughout.  There is no way in the world to graft new functions onto primitive and obsolete hardware such as that.  The Radeon 9n00 cards for pixel shader SM-2 were released about six or seven years ago.  The PC world has moved onward, leaving that ancient relic behind. 

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 20 juillet 2010 - 03:24 .

[cormagus77]

well, okay, thanks for the answer!

I guess I'll have to wait then... Or maybe it's time for me to move buying games from companies that care for the actual needs of their audiences by fitting games also to "lower" settings and not only to the newest inventions of the PC-World (There's plenty of other awsome games out there, working perfectly well with relics like the ATI radeon x300)...

Take care Folks

[Gorath Alpha]

Just play the old stuff over again.  Your complaint isn't new.  Electronic hardware has always moved on from place to place and tech innovation to newer tech innovation.  Six or seven years is literally FOREVER in terms of the PC based world.  Four years is the OUTSIDE EDGE of usefulness. 

What's particularly sweet right now is that ATI kept pushing nVIDIA with competitive pricing until all video graphics became very reasonable in cost compared to prior, less advanced graphical hardware pricing.  Being able to spend only $50 for something as comparatively modern and powerful as the Radeon HD 4670 is absolutely amazing! 

[cormagus77]

Indeed 4 years it is: bought this laptop in 2006!
sigh, good old times back then: So near and yet so far...
(And thanks for the sweet reminder: I'll keep it in mind to do justice to ATI when I get me a new PC)

Modifié par cormagus77, 20 juillet 2010 - 04:26 .

[Outamyhead]

cormagus77 wrote...

well, okay, thanks for the answer!
I guess I'll have to wait then... Or maybe it's time for me to move buying games from companies that care for the actual needs of their audiences by fitting games also to "lower" settings and not only to the newest inventions of the PC-World (There's plenty of other awsome games out there, working perfectly well with relics like the ATI radeon x300)...
Take care Folks

Cell Shading version 3, is not new in graphics card terms, it's been around since the x850 Pro, and that card is a good 5-6 years old now, and I think nVidia adopted the new shader before then with their series 6 cards!

I got just as annoyed that my old system with an ATI X700 could not play games with CS3 requirements, but I ran into that problem in '06 with Splinter Cell Double Agent, I knew I was going to have to upgrade, you cannot expect the games industry (especially one developer of the dozens in the industry) to wait about for a small pocket of old hardware users to catch up, especially when the consoles use the newer cell shading technology (I think the latest cards have CS4.0, so 3.0 is the minimum for now).

[CrustyCat]

cormagus77 wrote...

Indeed 4 years it is: bought this laptop in 2006!
sigh, good old times back then: So near and yet so far...
(And thanks for the sweet reminder: I'll keep it in mind to do justice to ATI when I get me a new PC)

Just so you know, laptops aren't generally good for gaming.  If you plan on buying a new laptop and use if for gaming, expect to pay a bunch of money and pay close attention to the specifications.

[cormagus77]

know this of course; and didn't buy it just for gaming...



And I'm still asking myself what the game industry is thinking? Do they seriously expect us to get a new PC or graphics card every four years???

[Gorath Alpha]

That depends on the "us" to whom you refer.  A huge proportion of the game players who purchase games from Steam are upgrading video cards annually.  I think the average game player on PCs does about what I do, and upgrades his/her video cards every two years.  But since I have waited a year before buying whatever card was new a year ago, I pay less, although I also tend to buy into the High End, rather than Mainline (and would never waste my money on anything Low End -- terrible value there), and by the time I upgrade again, it has reached three years of model years in age. 

[basdoorn]

cormagus77 wrote...

know this of course; and didn't buy it just for gaming...

And I'm still asking myself what the game industry is thinking? Do they seriously expect us to get a new PC or graphics card every four years???

This, or that you would buy a console like the Xbox360 or Playstation3. That makes much more sense if you are into new graphic video games and cannot afford to or do not want to upgrade your computer every few years. You can play Dragon Age with a more than 4 year old X1900XTX (introduction in jan-2006) provided your CPU can keep up and you can live with lower graphic settings and resolutions. However, this was a high-end card back then, which makes all the difference compared to a low-end X300 even if your purchase was more recent. When you play few different games, budget is tight and your other computing needs are light, going console is your safest bet. $ 500 worth of laptop and $ 500 worth of console will keep you going much longer than $ 1000 of 'gaming' laptop. For instance, the Xbox360 is around since mid-2005 and cost $ 399 at launch, yet it can run Dragon Age better today than almost any PC from around that time.

Modifié par basdoorn, 23 juillet 2010 - 02:28 .

[DABhand]

At the moment you can buy 768MB Geforce 460's for £155+ in the UK through online retailers.



Should last a few years before you get another one.



No point to this ongoing yearly buying spree on GPU's, just buy the midrange and use for a few years and repeat.

[Nathan Willis]

cormagus77 wrote...

...Do they seriously expect us to get a new PC or graphics card every four years???

I think we did a pretty good job trying to keep the game playable on lower-end systems. The minimum spec we listed for Dragon Age: Origins is as low-as-we-comfortably-dare to go. Whether or not a game is playable at minimum spec and lowest video settings is in the eye of the beholder, kind of -- but on the minspec system we tested it met certain critera that was considered acceptable and so it earned its listing on the game box.

What you're presenting gives way to a sort of catch 22 for us as a developer. We need to keep moving with the industry, developing games that look, play and feel modern by the gaming populace's standards, and yet you want us to continue to support a video chipset that was originally released in 2004 I think? But if we were to make something that could do that, then the graphics would be considered dated no matter how shiny or stylistic we made it look. Look at the lambasting a certain popular MMO-type game by another respected game development company regularly takes from critics on the intertronz for looking dated.

So, no - it's not that we expect you to get a new video card or PC every X number of years, it's more that the whole industry kind of does. We tried to make an effort to make it playable by more systems, taking into account that not everyone will have updated the PC's yet. But, even somebody who champions game consoles as having longevity -- as far as I know, the current average lifespan is about 6 years or so for a game console to date?

So if there's to be wailing and gnashing of teeth at somebody, then... then your fellow gamers are the culprit, here. The nature of the business is such that it responds to what's in demand - and that means that you will need to upgrade your gaming PC components from time-to-time in order to keep up with the software that's being developed, whether it's operating systems, games, or even word processors. I wish it wasn't so, but there is a cut-off line that exists for supported hardware and software - that's just the name of the game, so to speak.

[ncknck]

cormagus77 wrote...

And I'm still asking myself what the game industry is thinking? Do they seriously expect us to get a new PC or graphics card every four years???

lol, this rant would be valid a couple of years ago, but now, with 99% of all the games being console ports, it really doesnt make sense. Sysreqs of all games are frozen in 2006. you missed it by a hairslide. DirectX10, directx11? forget it. all games must maintain DX9 compatibility. And still there are people who complain. Whats next, cant get DA to run on my 286. Industry is moving too fast! :cry: :cry: :cry: The really sad part is that nextgen consoles are still quite a distance away, so the situation will not improve in near future.

[cormagus77]

Okay thanks for all your replies. I aprecciate it especially, to hear the answer from the bioware-perspective.

I admit, I'm not the mainstream gamer, and I don't care too much for the newest graphical settings. I'm a casual gamer interested in RPG and strategy-games and am perfectly happy with games like Baldurs Gate 2 or NWN 1+2 as they were.

I understand and respect that bioware (like others) is aiming for highest possible graphics and to cope with mainstream expectations. However I'm not sure if there really needs to be such a complete "cut-off line", as drawn in DAO( especially since the ATI-mobility radeon x300 is capable of running e.g. "Star-Trek-Online").

For the future my wish is, that bioware and others take into account, that not all gamers may have the financial budget to afford new PC/graphic-cards even every 4-6 years, while they may still have the budget to buy games. So it wouldn't hurt bioware and others to keep their games still basically compatible with "older" graphic-card versions.

Best regards

[basdoorn]

Your request is bona-fide and I respect this, but do realize that the industry is actually moving in your direction. You request that low-end hardware from 5 years back should support current software instead of mid-range systems from 4 years back, while computer history has been far worse. Baldurs Gate launched in 1998 requiring an Intel Pentium 166 MHz with a DirectX 3.0 capable video card with 2MB VRAM at minimum and recommended an Intel Pentium MMX 200 MHz with a DirectX 5.0 video card with 4MB VRAM. Mind you this game also required Windows 95. So lets look into this case for historic reference:

- Aug 1995 Windows 95 launches
- ??? 1995 Ati Rage 3D with 2 MB VRAM launches that will support DirectX 5.0
- Jan 1996 Pentium 166 MHz processor launch
- Jan 1997 Pentium MMX 200 MHz processor launch
- Mar 1997 Ati Rage Pro DirectX 6.0 card with 8MB VRAM launch
- Nov 1998 Baldurs Gate launches

Note that NVidia only comes with a video card that supports DirectX around Oct 1997 and is thus omitted. 3DFX Voodoo offered the best 3D performance in 1995, but did not support DirectX for as far as I could find. Still, you would have needed a computer no more than 2.5 years old built from high-end components at that time to play Baldurs Gate at launch because of the processor alone. This means a high end system only 3 years of age (in Nov 1995, Pentium 133 MHz was the best processor) would not have have been able to run Baldurs gate when it launched in Nov 1998.

Compare this with the Dragon Age launch in Sep 2009 with minimum requirements Intel Core2 Duo 1.4 GHz or AMD X2 1.8 GHz with video card NVidia 6600GT or ATI Radeon X850, recommended Intel Core2 Quad 2.4 GHz or AMD X3 2.8 GHz with video card NVidia 8800GTS or Ati 3850.

- Aug 2004 NVidia 6600 series launch some months after 6800 series
- Dec 2004 Ati Radeon X850 launch
- May 2005 AMD Athlon 64 X2 launch at speeds of 2.0 - 2.4 GHz (Intel C2D in Jul 2006)
- Nov 2006 NVidia 8800 series launch
- Jan 2007 Intel Core2 Quad launch at speeds of 2.4 - 3GHz (AMD X3 in Nov 2007)
- Nov 2007 Ati 3800 series launch

A 3 year old PC (Sep 2006) with high end components at the time of purchase for Dragon Age would have been for example an Intel Core2 Duo at 2.67 GHz with an Ati Radeon X1900 series video card. At the time of the Dragon Age launch this 3 year old PC exceeds the minimum requirements with some room to spare. Moreover, a high-end PC from Sep 2005, 4 years old at the Dragon Age lauch, could have met the minimum requirements with an AMD Athlon64 X2 2.2 GHz processor and an Ati Radeon X850 video card. I hope you can see the industry is moving in the right direction and with a little luck and somewhat higher end components at time of purchase, your next PC might actually make the 5 year mark.

Note that the average 6 year life cycle for a console system still beats this, so my advice still stands. Especially when you are on a tight budget, as none of the high-end systems would have been cheap at the time of purchase. In fact I am fairly certain all would have been over $ 1000 as a case-only desktop-PC (computer screen and other peripherals not included). Also, none of these systems would have been available in a laptop form-factor.

Modifié par basdoorn, 26 juillet 2010 - 01:25 .

[ncknck]

@cormagus77

if you dont have $500 every 7 years for "highest possible graphics". How can you have $50 for a game??



Bioware's games will never exceed 2006 reqs, no matter what they want you to believe. Not because they care but because they are making console games. And so is like every other dev. Until 2012 specs will stay the same. (xbox720). You just missed it.

[basdoorn]

One thing to keep in mind is that some PC games offer higher texture, shadow and effect detail modes on PC than on the consoles. Then there is the resolution for PC games which can go far beyond the 720p (1280x720) or 1080i/p (1920x1080) for console games. 2560x1600 for 30" screens and eyefinity resolutions for multi-screen setups like 5760x1080 can make a game stress a PC much harder. Then you have Anti Aliasing (AA) and Anisotropic Filtering (AF) settings that can go much higher on a PC.
This agrees with what was said, that the minimum hardware requirements of games will remain at the 2006 level for all games also appearing on consoles. If you want the best image quality on a PC however, then you will need a more recent video card and possibly processor, as you will get a better image quality than consoles can afford.

Modifié par basdoorn, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:46 .