Curse

Snograt · Jul 10, 2008, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Guild Wars Reloaded? I smell a torrent...

RoyalPredator · Jul 11, 2008, 05:19 AM // 05:19

GWR Is only the Guild Wars with my own mods.
Faces, 100% clear textures, skin replacements.

Nothing special

Lord Sojar · Jul 11, 2008, 05:38 AM // 05:38

Emulators blow. That is all.

Snograt · Jul 11, 2008, 07:22 AM // 07:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalPredator

GWR Is only the Guild Wars with my own mods.
Faces, 100% clear textures, skin replacements.

Nothing special

[Off topic, and really not the place for this, but...] Is that along the lines of the TexMod stuff? Sounds impressive if you've got your own modding stuff going - nood jora modz, pls?

Woop Shotty · Jul 13, 2008, 08:07 AM // 08:07

those with a mac pro, may I recommend buying the ATI 3870 mac n of edition when of comes out in the next couple weeks.

RoyalPredator · Jul 13, 2008, 04:53 PM // 16:53

Nah, just buy a GForce 8800GTS like me.

Woop Shotty · Jul 14, 2008, 12:52 AM // 00:52

No thanks, I will definitely get the aforementioned card because it comes with support for the Mac Pro, is PnP, less expensive, and is also said to have great performance with Mac OS X's GUI. I don't want to bother with flashing the ROM on the 8800 GTS to some GT ROM just to make it function, when the performance of both cards are comparable.

Lord Sojar · Jul 14, 2008, 02:05 AM // 02:05

Umm 8800GT > 3870, lawl. The G92 will kick that ATi card into oblivion. They are not comparable.

Woop Shotty · Jul 14, 2008, 02:08 PM // 14:08

Not according to the benchmarks I saw. Can you show me what I might have missed that proves it?

Tamuril elansar · Jul 14, 2008, 02:17 PM // 14:17

wrong benchmarks than, the G92 card ownz the ati 3000 series

Kattar · Jul 14, 2008, 02:34 PM // 14:34

Benchmarks =/= real results. Not necessarily anyway.

Woop Shotty · Jul 14, 2008, 02:43 PM // 14:43

Well after I made that post, I went and researched further. The way I see it, the two cards are comparable. The 3870 is generally 5-10 FPS less, but is less expensive. I think that my greater concern is with the stability of the card I choose, and it seems that the 3870 offers up something better.

I still have a couple weeks to think about it, because the Mac and PC edition isn't selling yet, but I think I feel more comfortable with the 3870.

Also, when you upgrade from a 7300GT, as Mac Pro users would be, either one seems like a great card. If I can just make CoD4 run in less than minimum settings with a decent frame rate, I will be very happy. Back when I used my gaming PC, I would totally leaned toward a card that outperforms by any amount, but those aren't exactly the days anymore. The stupid 7300GT doesn't even run GW well at low settings...

Kattar · Jul 14, 2008, 02:47 PM // 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woop Shotty

I think I feel more comfortable with the 3870.

That's the most important thing. If you like certain hardware better and are more comfortable buying it, then that's exactly what you should get. Kicking yourself later on for not buying what you really wanted is never a good feeling.

Woop Shotty · Jul 14, 2008, 06:08 PM // 18:08

Well, to be honest, I've had bad experiences from both Nvidia and ATI. Better experiences with Nvidia than ATi, though. I had a couple 6600 GTs from Evga that I used in SLI until I realized the performance was no better with 2 than 1, and they would overheat like crazy, causing the computer to shutdown. ATI make much worse drivers than Nvidia, although neither of them have ever impressed me much. Nvidia offers fast demo downloads on their well-made website.

I still do need to think about it a little more to be sure of it. When I bought my Mac Pro, I think they offered to put a 8600 GT in it for around $250 more, and I said no way Jose. I think it was a good choice, because now, no matter my choice of cards, I'm looking into putting a much better card into my comp instead.

I didn't really mean to change the subject. I just wanted to give a little update for the Mac users out there who might not have seen that they're finally offering more video cards for intel Mac Pros.

Etta · Jul 15, 2008, 08:48 AM // 08:48

Wait, why did you have 7300GT in your mac pro? Mine came with 8800 GT since the day I bought it (with company discount

) awhile back, was gonna go for Quadro but changed my mind.

I wish I get the imac instead, it's so sexy. Pro is too much like a pc.

Woop Shotty · Jul 15, 2008, 03:18 PM // 15:18

7300 GT was default in the 2007 models. You could upgrade to a 8600 GT, but I wasn't interested. I told myself that all I would ever play was Guild Wars.. like I was going to sacrifice a part of my gaming life. :P

Quaker · Jul 15, 2008, 08:22 PM // 20:22

My 2 cents:

Now that Macs use x86 processors and can run Windows, there's even less incentive for games companies to write games for OSX. This also makes most of the "Macs don't do games" comments rather pointless since all a Mac owner needs to do is install bootcamp and Windows. (It's cheaper than buying an Xbox. )

In fact, it is the Mac users who are ahead. PC users are essentially stuck using Windows for everything, unless you want to go to Linux or some other OS that has even less available than OSX.
Mac users can play their games under Windows and then switch to a (arguably) better OS for the rest or the apps.

Woop Shotty · Jul 16, 2008, 01:11 PM // 13:11

Well, I don't think any incentive is there to make Mac-only games, but I love cross-compatible games. I used windows for so long, and since last year, I've grown to love working within the mac OS so much more. I know that developers look at what kinds of systems offer the best solutions for THEM, but I think that most people given the opportunity to work with os x will choose it over windows. And the only argument I have is that you should be able to work and play on a single OS that suits you. I love to play wc3 - which as you may know it plays on mac+win. It's installed on my mac side. Why would anyone waste the time going between oses when it isn't necessary.

zamial · Jul 16, 2008, 03:58 PM // 15:58

I think that it is great that you are able to play GW on your macs. My veiws on macs are:

CONS:
- they are way over priced
- they are deceptive (macs do not get viruses, lol, ya right)
- they use a nonstandard operating system language (more on this in a sec)
- little of the software is compatible cross platforms
- most owners are arrogant (not saying you are)

Pros:
- they are pretty
- they use a 128 bit os (thats cool)
- they pilot new technology (usb motherboard mounted harddrive = airbook which is 8x slower than sata2)
- they beat all others for high end graphic/video editing

A fast history of me:
I learned multiple os languages when I was younger. commodor64, apple, texas instruments, and ibm. I decided to wait untill a standard was made before continuing to learn indepth functions. Windows is ATM the world standard. This is also my issue with linix.

In a windows server enviorment, the mac users are the most problematic to solve. It seems like there is always someone who needs to iceskate uphill. Not to mention isn't using bootcamp on a mac, loading windows still windows? If you need to do that, why not use windows to start with? I am not attempting to poke fun at or upset the mac users with this post, I am however, trying to understand them a little better.

It seems that most schools/universities seem to push apple products on to the uneducated students, which I think is pretty harsh when they realize what they have.

Quaker · Jul 16, 2008, 04:05 PM // 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woop Shotty

Why would anyone waste the time going between OSes when it isn't necessary.

No one would - IF it isn't necessary. But the realities of the situation still are that it IS necessary if you want to play (most) games on a Mac.

The realities also are that Macs are relatively expensive compared to PCs of the same performance (hardware) level, and since Macs are proprietary (no Mac clones), they continue to have a relatively small portion of the market. The proportion of Mac users who play games is also relatively small.

So, it comes down to getting Game developers to write games for a small portion of the PC market, which has an even smaller portion of gamers, which has an even smaller portion that can't (won't) run windows. (And, you're talking about a PC game market which has serious competition from the console market already.)

Perhaps, if Apple would/could do a version of OSX to run on "standard" x86 hardware, you'd start to get some market penetration, but I doubt that that will happen unless Apple is near bankruptcy and needs the money badly.