PDA

View Full Version : Everquest 2 high end system verses WoW high end system..


Pages : [1] 2 3

ChrisRay
04-05-05, 07:08 AM
What does it take to run both at the highest possible settings? Well see below...




P.S. This is just a rib joke at both companies. ;p

nutcrackr
04-05-05, 07:22 AM
I notice Everquest 2 is still running low res :p

caldas
04-05-05, 08:45 AM
:D good ChrisRay

Marcos
04-05-05, 10:24 AM
WoW just looks like a zoomed in Warcraft III. It would be acceptable if it was still 2001. EQ II is just a mess.

CaptNKILL
04-05-05, 05:18 PM
This is why I play Ultima Online ;)

gram_vaz
04-05-05, 08:41 PM
lol, nice commentary on both game's graphics. one went overboard with the graphics and the other just didn't try hard enough for the graphics.

Elderblaze
04-05-05, 09:06 PM
Blizzard did what they did on purpose, you don't get 1.5 million subscribers requiring 2 ghz machines with a gig of ram.

regards,
mike

DaveChambers
04-05-05, 09:48 PM
Blizzard did what they did on purpose, you don't get 1.5 million subscribers requiring 2 ghz machines with a gig of ram.

regards,
mike

:beer: :clap2:

gram_vaz
04-05-05, 10:17 PM
yes, i've heard it all before. i dont' see why blizzard couldn't have included a low, mid, and high graphical settings like many other games do.

Elderblaze
04-06-05, 05:53 AM
Well, wow's World geometry and models are all low poly. It's hard to adjust those things with a slider bar. The only thing they could have done better is perhaps add more Pixel shader effects. I think WOW's flawless myself. Sure i'ts low poly, but it sure is beatiful regardless. It's definatly a "next gen" mmo. I think it looks better then anything other then EQ2. It has superb art and color use. EQ2's graphics look nice and detailed, but to me, personally I can't stand most of the art, drab and dull, monotone, just blah. That's my personal opinion though and as such, is not stated as fact.

So there's no misunderstanding, I don't play Wow or EQ2, I do still play EQ1 alot though. And I did give both games a honest shot, played Wow for about 2 mos and EQ2 around the same.

Regards,
Mike

ChrisRay
04-06-05, 05:54 AM
Well, wow's World geometry and models are all low poly. It's hard to adjust those things with a slider bar. The only thing they could have done better is perhaps add more Pixel shader effects. I think WOW's flawless myself. Sure i'ts low poly, but it sure is beatiful regardless. It's definatly a "next gen" mmo. I think it looks better then anything other then EQ2. It has superb art and color use. EQ2's graphics look nice and detailed, but to me, personally I can't stand most of the art, drab and dull, monotone, just blah. That's my personal opinion though and as such, is not stated as fact.

Regards,
Mike

Well. EQ 2's shader model system actually adjusts the polygon count based upon the models being rendered. ((High detail verses low detail)) and you can adjust the triangle distance ect for geometry performance. It can be done if the engine is scalable enough.

Elderblaze
04-06-05, 05:57 AM
/sarcasm on
yes Chris, and we see how well it worked for EQ2. Shiat performance on Low Medium and High quality.
/sarcasm off

Though i see your point. EQ 2's performance does not scale properly. There's not as much of a differnce between High/Medium/low as there should be. It's like you give up 500% quality for 25% speed. It's just not scaled right.

WOW's graphics engine is nothing special, it's just a hacked Warcraft 3 mod, what the developers and artist did with it, however is quite special imo. Imagine what they could do with Unreal engine.

ChrisRay
04-06-05, 06:00 AM
I dont really agree with you regarding the performance of the various modes. The engine scales fine dependent on the workload you give it and the various shader settings you set. That is also completely dependent upon the area being rendered as well. I havent had any massive problems tweaking this game. You just need to figure out your CPU/GPU bottlenecks. As the game is limited dependent completely on the area you're at. I dont know what computer system you own. Both my computers I've been able to get acceptable performance/IQ out of. But the sky was never my aim for either setup. I had some fairly realistic expectations for EQ 2 performance.

WOW's graphics engine is nothing special, it's just a hacked Warcraft 3 mod, what the developers and artist did with it, however is quite special imo. Imagine what they could do with Unreal engine

WoW artwork IMO is not as special as you make it sound to be. Its based upon warcraft 3 artwork. And it fits the Warcraft 3 universe. But it's nothing thats been radically changed from any previous Warcraft game. It's meant to be a cartoony MMORPG. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Elderblaze
04-06-05, 02:57 PM
Ok then, fine Chris, wow's artwork is average, EQ2's just suck real bad so it makes it look above average.


My system specs :

MSI K8n Neo 2
1 GB PC 3200 ram
Evga Geforce 6800 GT
Athlon 3500+ @2.5 Ghz
Audigy 2
Raptor 10k serial ata
Windows XP SP2
All newest drivers, Forceware 76.41

Rough figures:
24k 3dmark 01
14k 3dmark 03
5.5k 3dmark 05
Doom 3 61 fps @ 1600x1200 high quality
Riddick 40-60 Fps @ 1280x1024 PS 2.0 (not ++)
Far Cry 60+ Fps @ 1600x1200
Half Life 2 VST 99.6fps @ 1600x1200

Everquest 2: Black Burrrow, motion sickness inducing single digits. Someone get me a barf bag please k thx.

To be fair I have not played the game since late December. With 66.xx drivers. I got sick of waiting for them to fix the stuttering and gave up. perhaps performance has improved since then.

ChrisRay
04-06-05, 06:45 PM
There is obviously something wrong with your setup if you cant get it to play properly on your system. No offense. But if you cant get the game playable in blackburrow. Then well. You obviously havent tweaked the game. Even my Athlon XP can achieve twice those framerates at a custom medium/high detail @ 1280x960 with 4xAA/8xAF. Maybe I should send you my eq_recent.ini since tweaking the game seems to be a problem for you. ((yes I can be sarcastic too!)) :cool: That or you just have too high expectations for your computer to for EQ 2.

Personally. I know dozens of others who have gotten this game playable on their rigs without having to bite their fingers off in the process. You seem awfully defensive. And seem to have some kind of personal grudge towards EQ 2.

Elderblaze
04-07-05, 02:56 AM
blah chris.. I have been building computers for years. There's absolutely nothing wrong with my system. Im do find it insulting though that it dosent run EQ2 as well as I think it should. It's like slap in the face. It's made me very bitter towards EQ2. I spent days trying to tweak it when I first got it, but at the time and for a long time until very recently i've heard, there was the whole Stuttering issue, which is supposedly resolved in 76.41 I'll never know because there's not a snow balls chance in hell im re-signing. Im having way to much fun in EQ1 right now. So yeah, I do have a grudge against EQ2. I don't make alot of money and it's valuable to me, that's 50 bucks I wasted, for one. I feel cheated that it was advertised as "The way it's meant to be played" and there are qoutes and articles saying how great it would be on Nvidia hardware.

And chris, the game is definatly NOT optimized. This can easily be seen by comparing the performance of a Radeon 9800 Vrs a Geforce 6800 Ultra. The ultra should be about 100% faster. In reality it's lucky to be 30% faster. This does not add up.

Regards,
Mike

ChrisRay
04-07-05, 05:11 AM
And chris, the game is definatly NOT optimized. This can easily be seen by comparing the performance of a Radeon 9800 Vrs a Geforce 6800 Ultra. The ultra should be about 100% faster. In reality it's lucky to be 30% faster. This does not add up.


Thats because the game is not completely GPU limited. It is exceedingly CPU limited in many cases. On either a 6800GT SLI setup. X800 XT, 6800 Ultra or any setup. You cant expect the game thats bottlenecked by the CPU to exhibit massive performance increases by just adding a new GPU.

. Im do find it insulting though that it dosent run EQ2 as well as I think it should. It's like slap in the face. It's made me very bitter towards EQ2.

This alone makes me see that you expected to run this game well on modern hardware at near to max settings. Your expectations were too high for this game. A MMORPG is not the same as Doom 3, Far Cry, or Half Life 2. It's completely dynamic and requires almost twice the power to run the game becaus it always changes.

If you had studied up on previous SOE MMORPGs you would see this is absolutely completely in line with they have done in the past. EQ 1, Shadows of Luclin, Star Wars Galaxy, All were not running at full speed on modern hardware at the time. IMO you should have expected this. Sony themselves said the game could not be anywhere close to max details on current hardware. And this is exactly the reality of the situation. In my opinion its your own fault for expecting too much out of the game.

MMORPG trends have always been this way. I could run most games great back when Luclin was released on a Geforce 2 Ti and an Athlon @ 1 Ghz with 640 megs of memory. Luclin didnt look much better than games out at the time. It actually in many cases looked worse. I had to notch down settings and reduce texture loads to get it to acceptably run. It took till I got an athlon XP 2500+ With 1 Gig of memory and an FX 5900 till I could finally play the game at settings "I would have liked". It's just the way MMORPGs are. World of Warcraft is one of those exceptions. But thats because it was designed for extremely low end systems in mind.

|MaguS|
04-07-05, 07:00 AM
I remember when EQ1 released, It was struggling my system that played Quake 2 perfectly at the time and looked worse. I kept thinking, "WTF, I can play Q2 at 1024x768 smooth as heck but EQ is lagging on 800x600 and it looks like crap!".

MMORPGs are bottlenecked by CPU because they have so much more background opperations. They have to calculate all the math during combat, plus locations of objects and characters constantly. Its not like Doom 3 that only needs to calculate 4 things on screen at once, it needs to do 50 or more random objects (wether it be a player running by or another NPC near by) at any given time.

Sorrow
04-07-05, 07:58 AM
no, no EQ2 is still the unstable game it was 5 months ago. WoW has a move lively feel to it, EQ2, well, has a dull boring feel to it, having been the second highest warden on crushbone for the first 2 months of the game, I have experience with the game. And having two 40+ chars in WoW, I can say I have experience with that.



EQ2 needed to be more liveley, but everything looked dull and slow, not enough going on in the world, and the zones were limited and confined.

|MaguS|
04-07-05, 10:56 AM
What... EQ2 unstable? I think it depends on the person. I had some issues but it was due to my old PC, once I upgraded to 939 and a new motherboard I have yet to crash with EQ2. My friend never crashed at all on a P4 1.5 w/ G4 Ti4800.

Hell, Server stability on EQ2 is superior to WoW in every way possible. I think since launch we have had one extended period of downtime... how many has wow had?

EQ2s world is VERY livily, unlike WoWs who stand in a single spot most of the time. NPCs wander from zone to zone, actually interact with eachother and take notice of you aswell even if the NPC is just for detail and not for quests...

Many zones were locked but due to requiring players to earn the right to enter them... I guess this also is dependent on the person playing, I never felt limited.

2 months of a MMORPG is ****, especially if you grinded half the time (like you sound like you did). WoW you can get 40 in less then a month... its pathetic no sense of accomplishment, I read that someone got 40+ in the first two weeks...

Ninjaman09
04-07-05, 11:13 AM
2 months of a MMORPG is ****, especially if you grinded half the time (like you sound like you did). WoW you can get 40 in less then a month... its pathetic no sense of accomplishment, I read that someone got 40+ in the first two weeks...
Only for powergamers. Casual players enjoy the fact that they are rewarded for their time investment. I can't imagine how anyone could enjoy a game that they put over a hundred hours into and have only reached level 10, but maybe that's just me.

Elderblaze
04-07-05, 01:52 PM
Server overhead, and whatnot should not be anymore CPU demanding then any other MMO guys, they all (MMO's) have heavy overhead when it comes to all the stuff egbtmagus mentioned. It's more likely that EQ2 has a ****ty T&L implementation and far to much geometry is being procesed on the CPU rather then GPU as it should be, they may have done this so it scales "Better" with slower video cards, but they dident do us high end folks any favors, thats for sure. And EQ1 ALWAYS ran better then EQ2. Im not expecting to run the game at max details and settings, never was. I can't get what I consider exceptable performance out of "Balenced" with water set to fast update and shadows off. For a long time in EQ1 I was forced to use the old models. But the game still ran well enough. When I first got EQ1 in 99 I was on a Celeron 300a @464 with a TNT1. The game performed great in comparison to EQ2 at the time. I dident start having problems until Kunark, at which point I got a Celeron 566@935 and a Voodoo 2. This also ran the game quite well up until Luclin when I got a 1.4 Ghz Thunderbird and Geforce 2. etc etc.. Your comparison is invalid, EQ'2s not doing somthing right, obviously when it comes to Geometry, it should not require the CPU load it does, somthing's not being offloaded like it should be.

Regards,
Mike

Elderblaze
04-07-05, 01:58 PM
To make matters worse we've hit somewhat of a plateu in Single Core processor development. It's not going to be possible to pick up a CPU that's twice as fast every year like it was when EQ1 came out. I highly Doubt the dev's on EQ2 will take advantage of Dual core machines. And single processor performance aint gonna go up a whole lot this year. This means you are effectivly "Stuck" at your current level of performance for a long time. I hope you enjoy it and get cozy cause you arnt going to see any huge increase in performance Via hardware, as the only hardware that's still rapidly improving is Video card tech, the next Nvidia and ATi gpu's are suposed to have 24 pipes, of course EQ2 won't take advantage of it and you'll get like 2% performance upgrade for your 500 bucks because the games Geometry engine or some other facet dosent offload like it should.

Regards,
Mike

nrdstrm
04-07-05, 03:31 PM
Wow..literally. I love Everquest 2. WoW is also a good game. I don't understand why everyone feels they have to bash the other. I beta'd both games and got about the same time on both games during beta. I chose EQ2 because **I** liked it better. I have friends that swear by WOW. The graphics run very smooth for me on EQ2 after following Chris's guildlines (3.0@3.4, 1gb, 6800GT). I have crashed a total of maybe 5 times (all right after updates...with in a day after updates game is usually stable again). Both are good games...I just don't see a reason for the bashing...
Nrdstrm
PS WOW SUCKS....LOL...JK

Elderblaze
04-07-05, 04:44 PM
You dident read the whole thread, i don't play EQ2 or WOW and im not bashing one over the other. This is just a EQ2 bash in general that really has nothing to do with WOW. I play EQ1.

I guess I did compare them, this might give you the wrong impression. Gameplay wise they are both "good" games i supose, thought I don't care for the locked combat and trivial loot, that's a whole nother issue.

Regards,
Mike