Halo for me. I played it on a shitty GeForce 2 card, and I was surprised it looked so shit when I compared it to screenies (I was dissapointed in particular that the Covenant plasma gun didn't glow up :P). I completed it nonetheless, and a couple of months later I saved enough to buy a Radeon 9600. I fired that game up again and it was glorious.
[edit] That Doom 3 on a Voodoo 2 is pretty damn impressive. Is the engine supposed to scale that low? My cousin had trouble running it on full Low settings on a Radeon 9600, and this guy is chugging around at 30~fps (okay, with a specialized patch, I just noticed)!
Now I can run [WarCraft III] at 1440x900 with FSAA on my new laptop, and I just don't give a shit. (Of course it's horizontally stretched for game balance or something, which is incredibly lame. Particularly because there's no 4:3 resolution with a vertical height of 900 pixels so i can have the game look right, and still run at native.)
You know, it's because of things like that I'm glad I just went and got an older laptop with a 4:3 screen (1024x768, if anyone's interested). I really don't play any new PC games of note - the only one I've got from the last four years or so is Vampire: Bloodlines - and I'd hate to have the older ones I still play occasionally to be all stretched.
I'm happy with 4:3 for my PC(s) and 16:9 for my HDTV and newer consoles... well, the two Microsoft ones that actually support 16:9 worth a damn, anyway. (Although the N64 does it surprisingly well, too.)
Yeah, I used to be a computer gamer who did consoles on the side. The Xbox changed all that for me.
Fucking Mafia is too weak on my Computer. I have such a high frame rate, it Vsync's like crazy and there is no option for that, especially since the game was made for DX8. It's also nice to get over 90 frames.
Oh! Btw: I reinstalled Sims1 and it was installed in record time, not to mention that the resolution is fucking tiny on my 1200x1024 17" display.
On Mafia, I really really want to be able to crank the draw distance about forty times farther than it'll go. It sucks.
I first played Half-Life 2 on a Pentium 4 at 2ghz with 512mb ram and a Geforce4MX420, the biggest pos garbage card ever. But I actually managed to get it running pretty decently with medium settings. Needless to say, my current rig (3500+, 1gig ram, Geforce7600gt) can run it with all the bells and whistles.
Also, that last computer couldn't run Deus Ex: IW at all due to the MX not having any shaders whatsoever, but it runs smoothly on my current pc.
Oh god and the horror that was Vampire: Bloodlines. I actually played that on my old PC, but the loading times were absolutely heinous. It would take at least 5 minutes every time it had to load and it ran choppy as fuck. I subjected myself to about 2 hours of that before deciding to stall it until I got a new PC. Again, it runs pretty smoothly on my current pc. But it's still a piece of garbage code. I mean, it's the HL2 engine, yet it doesn't look half as good as HL2 yet it still has worse performance. What a shitload of fuck.
Fucking Mafia is too weak on my Computer. I have such a high frame rate, it Vsync's like crazy and there is no option for that, especially since the game was made for DX8. It's also nice to get over 90 frames.
Oh! Btw: I reinstalled Sims1 and it was installed in record time, not to mention that the resolution is fucking tiny on my 1200x1024 17" display.
On Mafia, I really really want to be able to crank the draw distance about forty times farther than it'll go. It sucks.
Like that Morrowind mod that expands the draw distance to... uh... infinite?
I first played Half-Life 2 on a Pentium 4 at 2ghz with 512mb ram and a Geforce4MX420, the biggest pos garbage card ever. But I actually managed to get it running pretty decently with medium settings. Needless to say, my current rig (3500+, 1gig ram, Geforce7600gt) can run it with all the bells and whistles.
Also, that last computer couldn't run Deus Ex: IW at all due to the MX not having any shaders whatsoever, but it runs smoothly on my current pc.
Oh god and the horror that was Vampire: Bloodlines. I actually played that on my old PC, but the loading times were absolutely heinous. It would take at least 5 minutes every time it had to load and it ran choppy as fuck. I subjected myself to about 2 hours of that before deciding to stall it until I got a new PC. Again, it runs pretty smoothly on my current pc. But it's still a piece of garbage code. I mean, it's the HL2 engine, yet it doesn't look half as good as HL2 yet it still has worse performance. What a shitload of fuck.
Shitty performance and buggy code aside, though, the game is absolutely outstanding. Fan-patches FTW (just as with Frontier: First Encounters, actually).
Fallout 2. I was desperate to play it but we only had a Pentium 75. Managed to get it to run easy enough but it took forever to travel from one location to the next. Then we got a Pentium 350 and it was glorious
In the same vein, back in the ole DOS days, trying to play Battle Chess on our DOS machine, it literally took some of the slower pieces half an hour to cross the board.
Heh, I remember the reviews for Blade Runner... they were complaining that nobody had hard drives big enough to take the maximum installation for that game. (never was a problem for me as I bought it as a budget game much later)
I'm planning on buying a new computer in the coming months and afterwards I'm looking forward to putting Oblivion on there and actually having decent clumps of grass and plants, instead of large patches of nothing interspersed with one or two plants.
P.S. The only DOS game I've never managed to get working at all under Windows is Strike Commander. Pretty sure that's impossible... unless DOSbox somehow pulls it off. Oh, and MechWarrior 2 is a pig as well, since I don't have the Win95 edition.
Actually, the DOS versions of MW2 are the only ones that you can easily run in WinXP, thanks to DOSBox. The Win95 3DFX versions are still unplayable. They simply won't run.
Now I can run [WarCraft III] at 1440x900 with FSAA on my new laptop, and I just don't give a shit. (Of course it's horizontally stretched for game balance or something, which is incredibly lame. Particularly because there's no 4:3 resolution with a vertical height of 900 pixels so i can have the game look right, and still run at native.)
You know, it's because of things like that I'm glad I just went and got an older laptop with a 4:3 screen (1024x768, if anyone's interested). I really don't play any new PC games of note - the only one I've got from the last four years or so is Vampire: Bloodlines - and I'd hate to have the older ones I still play occasionally to be all stretched.
I'm happy with 4:3 for my PC(s) and 16:9 for my HDTV and newer consoles... well, the two Microsoft ones that actually support 16:9 worth a damn, anyway. (Although the N64 does it surprisingly well, too.)
Yeah, I used to be a computer gamer who did consoles on the side. The Xbox changed all that for me.
Well, it's not normally a problem. Most of my games support widescreen, and the ones that don't are typically ones like Baldur's Gate that you don't really want to be running at higher than 800x600 anyway (if you want to be able to see anything). The scaling of non-native is not great, but it's not mind-blowingly awful either. Half of the Oblivion minutes you see in my sig were racked up on my MacBook Pro at 1024x768, and compared to playing it on my desktop on a CRT it wasn't that bad - probably even better, though the LCD has less saturated colors. (Though it took me a while to find how to stop it stretching 4:3 resolutions in Windows - alas, Mac games just do whatever the hell they want in that regard.)
And of course, a MacBook Pro is not something I bought for gaming anyway, and running Xcode at "native res" is typically not a concern.
I played through fallout recently, and for some reason, god knows why the amount of random encounters you get is diredtly tied to your cpu speed. With nothing to stop me I started the game by taking a leusurly walk down to Navarro and picking up some power armour and laser rifles before heading back up to go through the towns.
Now I can run [WarCraft III] at 1440x900 with FSAA on my new laptop, and I just don't give a shit. (Of course it's horizontally stretched for game balance or something, which is incredibly lame. Particularly because there's no 4:3 resolution with a vertical height of 900 pixels so i can have the game look right, and still run at native.)
You know, it's because of things like that I'm glad I just went and got an older laptop with a 4:3 screen (1024x768, if anyone's interested). I really don't play any new PC games of note - the only one I've got from the last four years or so is Vampire: Bloodlines - and I'd hate to have the older ones I still play occasionally to be all stretched.
I'm happy with 4:3 for my PC(s) and 16:9 for my HDTV and newer consoles... well, the two Microsoft ones that actually support 16:9 worth a damn, anyway. (Although the N64 does it surprisingly well, too.)
Yeah, I used to be a computer gamer who did consoles on the side. The Xbox changed all that for me.
You know, you probably have a setting somewhere to change how fullscreen games are displayed. My laptop's GeForce FX Go5650 has it's own set of options available from the Advanced button in the Settings tab of Display Properties. One of those settings controls whether fullscreen displays are stretched out to fit the monitor, left at their native resolution, or scaled as far as possible while maintaining the aspect ratio. If you have a Windows system, you probably have something similar.
I can't wait for the day that Oblivion gets to be like this, where you can use both HDR and AA at the same time and still get 60fps on a 'budget' computer.
Don't count on it. I booted Morrowind for shits and giggles after installing Oblivion, and even with a X2 3800, 2GB RAM and a 7600 GeForce it STILL chugs in certain areas..
Now I can run [WarCraft III] at 1440x900 with FSAA on my new laptop, and I just don't give a shit. (Of course it's horizontally stretched for game balance or something, which is incredibly lame. Particularly because there's no 4:3 resolution with a vertical height of 900 pixels so i can have the game look right, and still run at native.)
You know, it's because of things like that I'm glad I just went and got an older laptop with a 4:3 screen (1024x768, if anyone's interested). I really don't play any new PC games of note - the only one I've got from the last four years or so is Vampire: Bloodlines - and I'd hate to have the older ones I still play occasionally to be all stretched.
I'm happy with 4:3 for my PC(s) and 16:9 for my HDTV and newer consoles... well, the two Microsoft ones that actually support 16:9 worth a damn, anyway. (Although the N64 does it surprisingly well, too.)
Yeah, I used to be a computer gamer who did consoles on the side. The Xbox changed all that for me.
Well, it's not normally a problem. Most of my games support widescreen, and the ones that don't are typically ones like Baldur's Gate that you don't really want to be running at higher than 800x600 anyway (if you want to be able to see anything). The scaling of non-native is not great, but it's not mind-blowingly awful either. Half of the Oblivion minutes you see in my sig were racked up on my MacBook Pro at 1024x768, and compared to playing it on my desktop on a CRT it wasn't that bad - probably even better, though the LCD has less saturated colors. (Though it took me a while to find how to stop it stretching 4:3 resolutions in Windows - alas, Mac games just do whatever the hell they want in that regard.)
And of course, a MacBook Pro is not something I bought for gaming anyway, and running Xcode at "native res" is typically not a concern.
Out of curiosity, are you just using Boot Camp to run Oblivion? Or is there a mac version available/method that doesn't involve rebooting?
I can't wait for the day that Oblivion gets to be like this, where you can use both HDR and AA at the same time and still get 60fps on a 'budget' computer.
Don't count on it. I booted Morrowind for shits and giggles after installing Oblivion, and even with a X2 3800, 2GB RAM and a 7600 GeForce it STILL chugs in certain areas..
Well, thats more due to the engine used for Morrowind being incredibly unstable, rather than the Megahurtz.
I played through fallout recently, and for some reason, god knows why the amount of random encounters you get is diredtly tied to your cpu speed. With nothing to stop me I started the game by taking a leusurly walk down to Navarro and picking up some power armour and laser rifles before heading back up to go through the towns.
Which is exactly why it was such a pain to play on the Pentium 75... god the amount of random encounters was ridiculous.
System Shock 2 was actually kind of a pain to play on the PC I first played it on. However it was a delight to play on my last rig. Unfortunately it runs...strangely on this one.
MW4 is another game that I found to be a joy on this PC as opposed to the one I originally played it on. I just wish I could find my mecernaies disc =\
I remember when Diablo 1 took more than a minute per loading screen, and then jerked slowly forward through its "gameplay".
Maybe I'm just old.
Oh well. Also, I first played WoW with 256 MBs RAM and a GeForce 2, and it... wasn't impressive. Then I upgraded to 512, and it worked smoothly at default settings. Then my GF2 kicked the bucket and my friend gave me a Radeon 9800 for free (he'd just upgraded it to another, better card ANOTHER friend had given him for free), and I can push everything to max in WoW now and keep it smooth. As an added bonus, Half-Life 2 became accessible.
Out of curiosity, are you just using Boot Camp to run Oblivion? Or is there a mac version available/method that doesn't involve rebooting?
That'd be Boot Camp, in the infinite questionableness of its drivers. (Actually they work fine for most things, but I've noticed enough visual glitches and crashing in games that the video drivers are suspect.)
LoneIgadzra on
0
Options
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
I remember when I replaced my horribly aged 486/DX2 with a bleeding-edge Pentium II machine (which was later equipped with a Voodoo 2 -- Jesus Christ, Unreal was nuts) and running my old DOS favorites again, stuff like MW2, Descent, and various FPS games. That turned out to a mistake since the combination of first-person perspectives and OMGKRAZYFRAMERATES quickly made me motion sick. Repeatedly. Oh god, it was good.
The flipside of that was I was able to play Looking Glass' Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri at actual playable framerates. That game was totally worth the barf bag.
I found that when you're running PC games on a modern machine, you generally run into a rift. If the game is old enough, you can run it pretty much spot on with DOSBox and the like. If it's new enough, you can just run it as-is. But there's this hell period in the mid-90s or thereabouts where the games are just a complete pain to run. If it's a DOS game, it runs like ass on an emulated environment, and if it's a Windows 95 game, it likely won't run period. The DOS version of MechWarrior 2 is really easier to run than the Win95 version. In fact, with a bunch of trickery, I was able to run DOS version in XP natively, without even resorting to DOSBox. I can't say the same with the Windows version.
Out of curiosity, are you just using Boot Camp to run Oblivion? Or is there a mac version available/method that doesn't involve rebooting?
That'd be Boot Camp, in the infinite questionableness of its drivers. (Actually they work fine for most things, but I've noticed enough visual glitches and crashing in games that the video drivers are suspect.)
Fallout 2. I was desperate to play it but we only had a Pentium 75. Managed to get it to run easy enough but it took forever to travel from one location to the next.
A bit OT, but it's embarassing how long I wandered in the desert (literally!) before finding out I could buy and fix up that Highwayman. Lots of wasted time, lots of annoying random encounters.
I remember when Diablo 1 took more than a minute per loading screen, and then jerked slowly forward through its "gameplay".
Maybe I'm just old.
Bah, I remember having enough time to go make a sandwich while I waited for the computer to go through it's turns in Master of Magic. Sadly, that game is long dead and from what I've garnered impossible to play unless you have a machine that's running actual DOS due to the extended/expanded memory fuckmuppitry needed to get it to run in the first place.
Also, I'm still sad Microprose died.
*Edit* Holy shit. Stardock was once in negotiations with Atari to do a remake? How did I not know this.
I found that when you're running PC games on a modern machine, you generally run into a rift. If the game is old enough, you can run it pretty much spot on with DOSBox and the like. If it's new enough, you can just run it as-is. But there's this hell period in the mid-90s or thereabouts where the games are just a complete pain to run. If it's a DOS game, it runs like ass on an emulated environment, and if it's a Windows 95 game, it likely won't run period. The DOS version of MechWarrior 2 is really easier to run than the Win95 version. In fact, with a bunch of trickery, I was able to run DOS version in XP natively, without even resorting to DOSBox. I can't say the same with the Windows version.
When I first got a PC I downloaded the Quake demo just to see what all the hubbub was about back in the day, and suffice it to say it had fallen straight down the aforementioned crevice.
What pisses me off is when I try to play an old game and find the speed messed up. Because the game was programmed to run with as high a framerate as possible, and all the motion was programmed on a per-frame basis. Honestly, was throwing in an extra " * elapsedTime " or a frame limiter that much overhead? (And I like how the Mac ports never had that problem, and had higher res graphics.)
Quake 1 gave me problems. I was playing with an "IBM P150" CPU which was actually a Cyrix-based 133MHz CPU (IIRC). It ran great under Windows, but I couldn't get CD audio. I thought the music was bad-ass, so I went on a quest to fix it. Under DOS, I would get CD-audio but nothing else (the crappy MWAVE modem + Soundcard couldn't do both at once). I did notice that I had a lot more resolutions available to me and that it ran liquid-smooth at some of the ones that Windows had trouble with, so I lamented leaving DOS to get my grunts, growls, and explosions back. Of course, any other PC could do it fine, it just wasn't until 1999 that I got one (the day the PIII 500MHz Katami CPU launched... $3,400 total). I started with a Voodoo Banshee but bumped up to a Voodoo3 instead as soon as that was available.
GLQuake, Quake 2, QIIITEST... I was in heaven!
Here's the deal people: If you have a bunch of older PC games that you'd like to play someday, build a compatability system. The parts were dirt cheap a year after they were made... they're practically free now! Throw in a motherboard that can support a large modern hard drive and load it up with all the operating systems you might need. You might want a sub-8GB drive for the primary one with some 2GB partitions but it shouldn't be hard to do. I'd go with a GeForce2-class card because the last drivers were very modern and even some T&L games have problems with modern operating systems. A Voodoo2 SLI setup should be really cheap these days (avoid the Quantum "SLI on a card") and that'll cover the 3dfx Glide-exclusives. Note: Picky Final Fantasy VII does hardware accelleration with no fuss on a Voodoo2/3.
Quake 1 gave me problems. I was playing with an "IBM P150" CPU which was actually a Cyrix-based 133MHz CPU (IIRC). It ran great under Windows, but I couldn't get CD audio. I thought the music was bad-ass, so I went on a quest to fix it. Under DOS, I would get CD-audio but nothing else (the crappy MWAVE modem + Soundcard couldn't do both at once). I did notice that I had a lot more resolutions available to me and that it ran liquid-smooth at some of the ones that Windows had trouble with, so I lamented leaving DOS to get my grunts, growls, and explosions back. Of course, any other PC could do it fine, it just wasn't until 1999 that I got one (the day the PIII 500MHz Katami CPU launched... $3,400 total). I started with a Voodoo Banshee but bumped up to a Voodoo3 instead as soon as that was available.
GLQuake, Quake 2, QIIITEST... I was in heaven!
I found that when you're running PC games on a modern machine, you generally run into a rift. If the game is old enough, you can run it pretty much spot on with DOSBox and the like. If it's new enough, you can just run it as-is. But there's this hell period in the mid-90s or thereabouts where the games are just a complete pain to run. If it's a DOS game, it runs like ass on an emulated environment, and if it's a Windows 95 game, it likely won't run period. The DOS version of MechWarrior 2 is really easier to run than the Win95 version. In fact, with a bunch of trickery, I was able to run DOS version in XP natively, without even resorting to DOSBox. I can't say the same with the Windows version.
When I first got a PC I downloaded the Quake demo just to see what all the hubbub was about back in the day, and suffice it to say it had fallen straight down the aforementioned crevice.
What pisses me off is when I try to play an old game and find the speed messed up. Because the game was programmed to run with as high a framerate as possible, and all the motion was programmed on a per-frame basis. Honestly, was throwing in an extra " * elapsedTime " or a frame limiter that much overhead? (And I like how the Mac ports never had that problem, and had higher res graphics.)
Quake has a frame-limiter. Is it turned off in your settings?
Bah, I remember having enough time to go make a sandwich while I waited for the computer to go through it's turns in Master of Magic. Sadly, that game is long dead and from what I've garnered impossible to play unless you have a machine that's running actual DOS due to the extended/expanded memory fuckmuppitry needed to get it to run in the first place.
Also, I'm still sad Microprose died.
Have you ever played the age of wonders series? I think it was made by the same team or something (so very similar, towers with influence, researching the different spheres, etc.)
I found that when you're running PC games on a modern machine, you generally run into a rift. If the game is old enough, you can run it pretty much spot on with DOSBox and the like. If it's new enough, you can just run it as-is. But there's this hell period in the mid-90s or thereabouts where the games are just a complete pain to run. If it's a DOS game, it runs like ass on an emulated environment, and if it's a Windows 95 game, it likely won't run period. The DOS version of MechWarrior 2 is really easier to run than the Win95 version. In fact, with a bunch of trickery, I was able to run DOS version in XP natively, without even resorting to DOSBox. I can't say the same with the Windows version.
When I first got a PC I downloaded the Quake demo just to see what all the hubbub was about back in the day, and suffice it to say it had fallen straight down the aforementioned crevice.
What pisses me off is when I try to play an old game and find the speed messed up. Because the game was programmed to run with as high a framerate as possible, and all the motion was programmed on a per-frame basis. Honestly, was throwing in an extra " * elapsedTime " or a frame limiter that much overhead? (And I like how the Mac ports never had that problem, and had higher res graphics.)
Quake fell back up the crevice in question when they released the source. There are quite a few good-looking ports available now.
And yes, it's unfortunate about the lack of frame limiters. I was running into that problem back in the 486 days...
I remember there was a bug way back with quake three where if you could crank up your framerate fast enough, it would make you able to move faster then everyone else, they did patch though in one of their final patches when it became a relevant problem at least.
Bah, I remember having enough time to go make a sandwich while I waited for the computer to go through it's turns in Master of Magic. Sadly, that game is long dead and from what I've garnered impossible to play unless you have a machine that's running actual DOS due to the extended/expanded memory fuckmuppitry needed to get it to run in the first place.
Also, I'm still sad Microprose died.
Have you ever played the age of wonders series? I think it was made by the same team or something (so very similar, towers with influence, researching the different spheres, etc.)
Yup, I've played through Age of Wonders many times. It's a great game but I just have a ton of fond memories of Master of Magic. I really wish I still had it sitting around somewhere, although getting it to run would be another matter entirely.
Posts
[edit] That Doom 3 on a Voodoo 2 is pretty damn impressive. Is the engine supposed to scale that low? My cousin had trouble running it on full Low settings on a Radeon 9600, and this guy is chugging around at 30~fps (okay, with a specialized patch, I just noticed)!
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
I'm happy with 4:3 for my PC(s) and 16:9 for my HDTV and newer consoles... well, the two Microsoft ones that actually support 16:9 worth a damn, anyway. (Although the N64 does it surprisingly well, too.)
Yeah, I used to be a computer gamer who did consoles on the side. The Xbox changed all that for me.
Steam | XBL
On Mafia, I really really want to be able to crank the draw distance about forty times farther than it'll go. It sucks.
Also, that last computer couldn't run Deus Ex: IW at all due to the MX not having any shaders whatsoever, but it runs smoothly on my current pc.
Oh god and the horror that was Vampire: Bloodlines. I actually played that on my old PC, but the loading times were absolutely heinous. It would take at least 5 minutes every time it had to load and it ran choppy as fuck. I subjected myself to about 2 hours of that before deciding to stall it until I got a new PC. Again, it runs pretty smoothly on my current pc. But it's still a piece of garbage code. I mean, it's the HL2 engine, yet it doesn't look half as good as HL2 yet it still has worse performance. What a shitload of fuck.
Like that Morrowind mod that expands the draw distance to... uh... infinite?
Shitty performance and buggy code aside, though, the game is absolutely outstanding. Fan-patches FTW (just as with Frontier: First Encounters, actually).
Steam | XBL
In the same vein, back in the ole DOS days, trying to play Battle Chess on our DOS machine, it literally took some of the slower pieces half an hour to cross the board.
Heh, I remember the reviews for Blade Runner... they were complaining that nobody had hard drives big enough to take the maximum installation for that game. (never was a problem for me as I bought it as a budget game much later)
I'm planning on buying a new computer in the coming months and afterwards I'm looking forward to putting Oblivion on there and actually having decent clumps of grass and plants, instead of large patches of nothing interspersed with one or two plants.
Actually, the DOS versions of MW2 are the only ones that you can easily run in WinXP, thanks to DOSBox. The Win95 3DFX versions are still unplayable. They simply won't run.
Dual core 2.0 ghz iMac, and yeah, runs like shite here.
And yet I recall playing it on a p266 perfectly reasonably.
Well, it's not normally a problem. Most of my games support widescreen, and the ones that don't are typically ones like Baldur's Gate that you don't really want to be running at higher than 800x600 anyway (if you want to be able to see anything). The scaling of non-native is not great, but it's not mind-blowingly awful either. Half of the Oblivion minutes you see in my sig were racked up on my MacBook Pro at 1024x768, and compared to playing it on my desktop on a CRT it wasn't that bad - probably even better, though the LCD has less saturated colors. (Though it took me a while to find how to stop it stretching 4:3 resolutions in Windows - alas, Mac games just do whatever the hell they want in that regard.)
And of course, a MacBook Pro is not something I bought for gaming anyway, and running Xcode at "native res" is typically not a concern.
it's to do with voxels and how the processing load increases exponentially or something
Nope.
No worky.
You know, you probably have a setting somewhere to change how fullscreen games are displayed. My laptop's GeForce FX Go5650 has it's own set of options available from the Advanced button in the Settings tab of Display Properties. One of those settings controls whether fullscreen displays are stretched out to fit the monitor, left at their native resolution, or scaled as far as possible while maintaining the aspect ratio. If you have a Windows system, you probably have something similar.
Don't count on it. I booted Morrowind for shits and giggles after installing Oblivion, and even with a X2 3800, 2GB RAM and a 7600 GeForce it STILL chugs in certain areas..
Out of curiosity, are you just using Boot Camp to run Oblivion? Or is there a mac version available/method that doesn't involve rebooting?
Well, thats more due to the engine used for Morrowind being incredibly unstable, rather than the Megahurtz.
Which is exactly why it was such a pain to play on the Pentium 75... god the amount of random encounters was ridiculous.
I'll also add Sim City 4. It's great to finally play that game without the pop-in and chop you get from scolling around the area.
MW4 is another game that I found to be a joy on this PC as opposed to the one I originally played it on. I just wish I could find my mecernaies disc =\
Maybe I'm just old.
Oh well. Also, I first played WoW with 256 MBs RAM and a GeForce 2, and it... wasn't impressive. Then I upgraded to 512, and it worked smoothly at default settings. Then my GF2 kicked the bucket and my friend gave me a Radeon 9800 for free (he'd just upgraded it to another, better card ANOTHER friend had given him for free), and I can push everything to max in WoW now and keep it smooth. As an added bonus, Half-Life 2 became accessible.
That'd be Boot Camp, in the infinite questionableness of its drivers. (Actually they work fine for most things, but I've noticed enough visual glitches and crashing in games that the video drivers are suspect.)
The flipside of that was I was able to play Looking Glass' Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri at actual playable framerates. That game was totally worth the barf bag.
I found that when you're running PC games on a modern machine, you generally run into a rift. If the game is old enough, you can run it pretty much spot on with DOSBox and the like. If it's new enough, you can just run it as-is. But there's this hell period in the mid-90s or thereabouts where the games are just a complete pain to run. If it's a DOS game, it runs like ass on an emulated environment, and if it's a Windows 95 game, it likely won't run period. The DOS version of MechWarrior 2 is really easier to run than the Win95 version. In fact, with a bunch of trickery, I was able to run DOS version in XP natively, without even resorting to DOSBox. I can't say the same with the Windows version.
Damn.
A bit OT, but it's embarassing how long I wandered in the desert (literally!) before finding out I could buy and fix up that Highwayman. Lots of wasted time, lots of annoying random encounters.
Coitus, those mantids are loathesome creatures.
Bah, I remember having enough time to go make a sandwich while I waited for the computer to go through it's turns in Master of Magic. Sadly, that game is long dead and from what I've garnered impossible to play unless you have a machine that's running actual DOS due to the extended/expanded memory fuckmuppitry needed to get it to run in the first place.
Also, I'm still sad Microprose died.
*Edit* Holy shit. Stardock was once in negotiations with Atari to do a remake? How did I not know this.
When I first got a PC I downloaded the Quake demo just to see what all the hubbub was about back in the day, and suffice it to say it had fallen straight down the aforementioned crevice.
What pisses me off is when I try to play an old game and find the speed messed up. Because the game was programmed to run with as high a framerate as possible, and all the motion was programmed on a per-frame basis. Honestly, was throwing in an extra " * elapsedTime " or a frame limiter that much overhead? (And I like how the Mac ports never had that problem, and had higher res graphics.)
I never finish anyth
GLQuake, Quake 2, QIIITEST... I was in heaven!
Quake has a frame-limiter. Is it turned off in your settings?
Have you ever played the age of wonders series? I think it was made by the same team or something (so very similar, towers with influence, researching the different spheres, etc.)
Quake fell back up the crevice in question when they released the source. There are quite a few good-looking ports available now.
And yes, it's unfortunate about the lack of frame limiters. I was running into that problem back in the 486 days...
Yup, I've played through Age of Wonders many times. It's a great game but I just have a ton of fond memories of Master of Magic. I really wish I still had it sitting around somewhere, although getting it to run would be another matter entirely.