MARK COLLINS
COMMUNITY WRITER
Default_picture
Followers (0)
Following (0)
LOCATION
TWITTER  -NONE-
FACEBOOK  -NONE-
WEBSITE  -NONE-
LINKEDIN  -NONE-
XBL  -NONE-
PSN  -NONE-
WII   -NONE-
STEAM  -NONE-
MARK COLLINS' SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
POST BY THIS AUTHOR (0)
COMMENTS BY THIS AUTHOR (9)
"Brendon - your inane blanket categorization of anything that requires just a little bit of learning curve as "pointless bullshit" is one of the most depressing, revealing things I've ever seen written in the Bitmob forums.

THANK.
GOD.

that Sins of a Solar Empire has sold nearly 1 million copies on a budget of under 1 million dollars, and that Starcraft II sold 1.5 million copies in 2 days, just to reinforce my hopeful belief that there really are gamers without ADD in the world these days."

Tuesday, August 17, 2010
"World of Conflict deserves a mention too, being on the lines of Dawn of War II that focus directly on moment-to-moment action of a smaller group of units instead of wider base-building resource-collecting strategy.

Shame that the console version was cancelled, since it was probably one of the RTSs best-suited to consoles from top to bottom."

Monday, August 02, 2010
"Derek, are you kidding me?  The GT220 isn't "not a great card", rather, it's a very low-end, overpriced piece of crap.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2855/15

"There’s really no way to sugar-coat this, so we won’t: the performance of the GT 220 is abysmal. Or rather, the pricing is."

I'd be surprised if even World of Warcraft runs decently on that card on anything but the lowest-end settings.

 

You may not have meant your article to focus on system specs, but in this case, system specs are *EVERYTHING*.  You made extremely misinformed assumptions about FF XIV based on very low-end hardware that Square shouldn't even worry about in the first place.  The GT 220 is not representative of hardware that practically any gamers running FF XIV will have in the first place.

Heck, I'd wager that even the very-successful FFXI would have trouble running on a GT 220.

The GT 220 is found for less than $70.  For just over $100, instead, you could have multiple times faster performance.

 

I realize that doing research on proper PC gaming parts is one of the barriers of entry to PC gaming, but so is buying the right TV for your new console, or heck, even researching the best couch for planting your butt on.  Buying the GT 220 is one of the worst hardware decisions possible to make, and no more than 5-10 minutes browsing around or asking the friendly people of Bitmob would have told you that.

 

I get that your article is supposed to be about what the mainstream audience might have, and how that mainstream hardware might affect the quality and sales of FF XIV.  However, you're severely misinformed if you think the GT 220 is at all representative for what hardware that potential customers of the game might have.  Yeah, WoW is an exception, but it's a nearly needless exception these days.  Tens of millions of gamers have exponentially faster GPUs these days than the GT 220.  Heck, probably 100+ million do.

You say that your system is "6 months old", but you're running a GPU that is many many many times slower, exponentially slower, than a $150-200 GPU from 3-4 years ago.  "

Wednesday, July 21, 2010
"Again, we actually have no idea whether Derek's computer meets the minimuim requirements or not.  He said he has a "1GB video card". That statement is as meaningless as "I have a 64-bit console".  The N64 is a "64-bit console", but so is the Xbox 360 for that matter.

So again, what is the actual GPU?"

Wednesday, July 21, 2010
"What is that "1GB video card"?  The amount of ram on a video card alone has been pretty much meaningless since the introduction of the original GeForce GPU.  

Look - all of these cards have 1GB of ram on them, which is helpful for doing things like GPU-accelerated video decoding and other such home theater PC tasks, but none of them are remotely capable when it comes to actually running games:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709+4025+600007779&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=48&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

 

I haven't actually run the FFXIV benchmark yet, but I can't imagine it's so demanding that a decently capable $150-250 GPU from the last few years could easily run it well..."

Tuesday, July 20, 2010
"problem with DRM conversations like this piece is that they often confuse facts, which leads to sensationalizing the story far more than it deserves to be covered. Bioshock 2's scheme here is [b]100% identical[/b] to what Fallout 3 used. SecuROM is not used for any activation. It's used as a disk check alone, that's it. Games for Windows Live is there, to be used in the same way as it was for Fallout 3. The term "SecuROM" has grown into this behemoth of terrible connotations, and for good reason I should add, but that does not mean SecuROM is an [b]inherently[/b] bad thing. It's been used for well over a decade - just for checking to see if you have the disc in the drive or not. Activation limits with SecuROM are a new concept as of a few years ago - the original Bioshock is the notorious example - but activation limits are not an implied part of SecuROM. The developer and publisher can choose to use or ignore any part of SecuROM they wish. In this case, 2K is not using activation limits. Just like Fallout 3 - which no one gave two craps about in terms of DRM - SecuROM is there to check to see if you have the disk in the drive, and that's it. Look - I'm not defending DRM here. But if you want to make legitimate complaints about DRM, it's best to save your energy for games that actually deserve it. Bioshock 2 - much like Fallout 3 - is not one of those"
Sunday, February 07, 2010
"frey, I think you're misunderstanding what people here are saying. No one is "badgering" him. People are making some very reasonable suggestions. In fact, it seems like your post is the most hostile in this entire thread. Chosing Crysis as your first game to play an a laptop with a mid-range graphics chip from 2 years ago just isn't a great idea. People pointed that out, and then suggested alternatives like I have done above. I think a similar example would be to pick Left 4 Dead 2 as your first choice for an Xbox 360 game, yet not having the Gold subscription to go along with it, and wondering what all the hubub is about because of the lack-luster single-player experience. That would screw with your entire impression of the platform. Not a direct comparison, of course, but the same idea of just picking the entirely wrong games to start with instead of matching a game choice with what you're able to do at the"
Monday, January 11, 2010
"t to reiterate what I said above - it's very easy to have an enjoyable gaming experience on a laptop. You just have to pick the right games to go along with it. Torchlight, Source Engine games, Telltale's games, masterpieces like Machinarium, tens/hundreds of other independent games, Popcap's games, and more are all perfect candidates. Saying that "a garden variety $400 laptop"..."What does that extra $800 cover?" is also just not a legitimate complaint. $400 laptops are absolute pieces of crap. Having recently done significant research to find a good work laptop (integrated graphics, no gaming at all), you have to spend at least $700 if you want something high-quality with great battery life. On the other hand, Alienware announced a "gaming netbook" for under $1000 at CES which sounds more promising, and ASUS has its UL30Jt which seems like it'll do the same thing. Higher-end portable PC gaming definitely seems like it'll be more affordable in time, just no"
Monday, January 11, 2010
"riel, I can appreciate your frustration, but you need to understand a couple things: 1) A 9600M mobile graphics chip is most certainly not "mid-range". It is somewhat comparable to the 9600-desktop series, which was mid-range nearly 2 years ago. Definitely not "mid-range" now, two years later. Gaming on laptops can be an expensive proposition unless you want to turn everything down to minimum settings. If you really want to play games on a laptop, you have to stick with Source Engine-powered games as the top-end. There are hundreds of amazing games to choose from that are extremely enjoyable to play on a laptop, and it's very short-sighted to think that the top-end of the top-end benchmark would be the way to go. On the other hand, a desktop built two years ago for $900 from bottom-to-top handles Crysis well at High detail settings. I don't have first-hand experience with Red Alert 3, but the C&C; games have always pushed graphics, at least for RTSs. I highly doubt that the 360 version does anything more than comparable Medium settings on PC. That was definitely true with C&C; 3 - a game I've actually played and seen on both platforms. About the install times and DRM issues - that is precisely why so many PC gamers are turning to digital distribution. It's true that you have longer up-front download times, but the installation is handled completely automatically, you don't need to bother with patches, and it's far more convenient. After getting 10+ games during the Steam holiday sale, it was completely painless to download all of them overnight. When I woke up, there they were, waiting for me to simply double-click and play. 80+ gigabytes downloaded, installed, and ready to go. Absolutely beautif"
Monday, January 11, 2010