You've got to be kidding me

[Maetryx]

Maetryx here,

I've been trying to convince my son not to buy Guild Wars because his mother's computer (where he's at right now) has a Nvidia GeForce4 MX 420 video card (or built into mobo, not sure). So I hunted down some reviews that called the MX 420 unsuitable for high end games and whatnot. I showed those to him.

Then I went to Guild Wars FAQ and found the following mininum and recommended specs:

What are the system requirements for Guild Wars?

Minimum System Specs:

* Windows® XP/2000/ME/98
* Intel Pentium® III 800 Mhz or equivalent
* 256 MB RAM
* CD-ROM Drive
* 2 GB Available HDD Space
* ATI Radeon 8500 or GeForce 3 or 4 MX Series Video Card with 32MB of VRAM
* 16-bit Sound Card
* Internet connection
* Keyboard and mouse

Recommended System Specs:

* Windows® XP/2000/ME/98
* Intel Pentium® III 1GHz or equivalent
* 512 MB RAM
* CD-ROM Drive
* 2 GB Available HDD Space
* ATI Radeon 9000 or GeForce 4 Ti Series Video Card with 64MB of VRAM
* 16-bit Sound Card
* Internet connection
* Keyboard and mouse

WTF? Are they just lying? The MX 420 was slow three years ago according to the reviews I read. How can they make this claim?

 

[hans030390]

it wont run well, but it will run.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I have seen WoW run on a radeon 7000 at decent speeds.

 

[Xyclone]

Originally posted by: hans030390
it wont run well, but it will run.

:thumbsup:

 

[Chompman]

Originally posted by: Maetryx
Minimum System Specs

That means 1-2 fps.

Never play a game on minimum system specs if you want to have fun playing it.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: Chompman

Originally posted by: Maetryx
Minimum System Specs

That means 1-2 fps.

Never play a game on minimum system specs if you want to have fun playing it.

So true, I managed to play BF1942 on a Matrox G400. It wasn't much fun though.

 

[gorcorps]

Recommended specs is what you want to shoot for as far as "playable." Doom3 ran on a card older/slower than that if I remember correctly... that doesn't mean it'll run well.

 

[LiekOMG]

Guild Wars runs surprisingly well on lower end systems. I was shocked that I was able to play it at full detail at 1280x1024 on my Geforce3 with smooth framerates.

Of course, I wouldn't get the game either way.

 

[Frodolives]

If I was to develop a mmorpg, I'd sure try and keep down minimum specs to include the many gamers around the world who aren't in the category of serious fps gamers who more often do costly upgrades to keep in the game.

 

[Malak]

Guildwars isn't an MMO and doesn't have the best graphics on the market, so it's no surprise it runs well on lower-end systems.

 

[computeerrgghh]

I was able to get it to run on a radeon 9000 mobility. I'm sure it would have run on laptop integrated gfx as well.

 

[Maetryx]

Originally posted by: DOACleric
Guild Wars runs surprisingly well on lower end systems. I was shocked that I was able to play it at full detail at 1280x1024 on my Geforce3 with smooth framerates.

Of course, I wouldn't get the game either way.

The GF4 MX 420 is probably (likely even) slower than the GF3 that you used. It is nearly the slowest card called a GF4.... only one slower is the GF4 MX 400. The GF4 MX 420 had a list price of $99 IIRC over three years ago. I think the memory speed is like 166MHz and I'm not sure that is DDR with an effective rate of 333. It may actually just be straight up 166MHz. Either way, recall that a 7800 GTX has a memory speed of 1,300MHz (for an unfair comparison).

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: Maetryx
Maetryx here,

I've been trying to convince my son not to buy Guild Wars because his mother's computer (where he's at right now) has a Nvidia GeForce4 MX 420 video card (or built into mobo, not sure). So I hunted down some reviews that called the MX 420 unsuitable for high end games and whatnot. I showed those to him.

Then I went to Guild Wars FAQ and found the following mininum and recommended specs:

What are the system requirements for Guild Wars?

Minimum System Specs:

* Windows® XP/2000/ME/98
* Intel Pentium® III 800 Mhz or equivalent
* 256 MB RAM
* CD-ROM Drive
* 2 GB Available HDD Space
* ATI Radeon 8500 or GeForce 3 or 4 MX Series Video Card with 32MB of VRAM
* 16-bit Sound Card
* Internet connection
* Keyboard and mouse

Recommended System Specs:

* Windows® XP/2000/ME/98
* Intel Pentium® III 1GHz or equivalent
* 512 MB RAM
* CD-ROM Drive
* 2 GB Available HDD Space
* ATI Radeon 9000 or GeForce 4 Ti Series Video Card with 64MB of VRAM
* 16-bit Sound Card
* Internet connection
* Keyboard and mouse

WTF? Are they just lying? The MX 420 was slow three years ago according to the reviews I read. How can they make this claim?

Oh it will run...the minumum specs are JUST to get it running, they dont specify how bad it will play, most likely on all low settings and still horrible frame rates.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Oh it will run...the minumum specs are JUST to get it running, they dont specify how bad it will play, most likely on all low settings and still horrible frame rates.

 

[Frodolives]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Guildwars isn't an MMO...

Yeah, I wasn't thinking straight on that score but you get my point nonetheless

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: Chompman

Originally posted by: Maetryx
Minimum System Specs

That means 1-2 fps.

Never play a game on minimum system specs if you want to have fun playing it.

So true, I managed to play BF1942 on a Matrox G400. It wasn't much fun though.

How'd you manage that? BF1942 required hardware T&L, which the G400 didn't have.

 

[duragezic]

GW is well-done. The graphics look great and the game runs smoothly on anything decent. My bro played Doom 3 with a GF4MX, and I know that is much more intensive than GW.

 

[BFG10K]

I have seen WoW run on a radeon 7000 at decent speeds.

That card can't even run GLQuake at decent speeds.

 

[touchmyichi]

you know i'm actually very impressed by the GW graphics.... Lots of really nice effects and a really efficient engine. I honestly was a lot more wow'ed the WOW (no pun intended)

 

[BrokenVisage]

Someone set up us the bump.

 

[Hacp]

I am able to run Guild wars on my old Dell with a Mx420 on 1280/1024 medium quality NO AA just fine. Plays like a champ. If you want AA, get a better card. If you don't want AA, then Guild wars is fine. Looks awesome even without AA.

 

[Vampirrella]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: Chompman

Originally posted by: Maetryx
Minimum System Specs

That means 1-2 fps.

Never play a game on minimum system specs if you want to have fun playing it.

So true, I managed to play BF1942 on a Matrox G400. It wasn't much fun though.

delete

Im wondering this as well... i tried running it on my old gforce ti 4600 128mb and it didnt run on that either

oops i was thnking BF2, not BF1942 OOPS! my bad..

But as far as GW running on low spec systems, it still looks pretty darn good. I was running it on a 1ghz laptop with 256mb ram and it was very playable. I think the game engine is well optimised and well coded to run on low end systems. Try it sometimes.. you will be plesantly surprised

 

[Stretchman]

Maybe someone else can clarify this, but I think the general rule of thumb is to double the recommended requirements if you want to run the game on max settings/detail.
For the minimum system specs, you'll probably want to double everything to get a nice balance b/w eye candy and playability.

I *really* like the fact that GW doesn't have a monthly fee - they've really stepped up to the plate, proving that a successful online business model doesn't have to incorporate monthly fees. Ironically enough however, I just couldn't get into GW - it's brand of fantasy just seemed a little "too much" - hard to describe really, just a little too serious/gothic style. For my own tastes, I preferred the exagerated cartoonish world of WoW.

Just reminds me though, I haven't played wow in a few months. :Q

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: hans030390
it wont run well, but it will run.