0
A note about the streaming technology. A change in the gameworld that you will download is no different than you downloading the data of a person who just logged on next to you. Or several people. I am pretty sure they arent going to change an entire section of the server at once, which is why they call it streaming. Even if alot in a city or something was being changed it might only be changed one thing at a time to avoid lag.
And while it actually might seem like a lot, the designation of what things look like takes a relatively little to send over a network connection. A lot of people do not understand how a server works, so they asume that the server is doing most of the work for their game, and that better graphics has to = higher server load (it dosent, just to let you know). This is where I think most MMORPGs can convince alot of their customers that their game is worth it. Granted, you are going to lag some with a dial-up connection, its unavoidable. However, you are only going to lag about as much as you would in d2 (network lag).
Of course, you have to add in that the game graphics will require a better machine on your part, so if you lag all the time (I mean like, all the time) then its undoubtedly your machine... or I suppose possibly your ISP has REALLY dropped the ball.
I work on/with computers for a living, so I like to think I know what I am talking about when it comes to that field. Of course, if you know something that contradicts what I've said, go ahead.
In any case, all that anyone REALLY needs to know is that GuildWars = awesome. And does not = d2. GuildWars > d2 ^^
To be clear(er):
Machine lag - slow graphics card - The game's "choppy" when you turn your camera.
Network lag - poor ISP - The game's "choppy" when you try to move.
The former is completely, 100% handled by your own PC - the latter is Server/Client latency.
Well, I stated earlier that it's not my field of expertise by any stretch of the imagination, so I have to attribute what I say to pure experience.
Talking to some of the testers that play on 56k internet connections, they seem to unanymousily agree the game runs leaps and bounds smoother than D2 ever did. They are using the same machines, same settings, same connections, the only difference is the game. Now I'm not attempting to argue with you or debunk what you were saying, but what's the technical explanation for this? There is most certainly a very noticeable difference for them, and the only change is the game they are playing.
Even graphically GW runs smoother on my PC than Diablo 2 ever did. That's maybe a bit of an unfair comparison because D2 was developed for the now longsince dead Voodoo cards, and Direct3D was only added later on in the development and as such far from optimized. However fact is: GW has awesome graphics and still runs relatively smooth on my average system (AMD 2000+, Ati Radeon 9000 Pro, 768MB RAM).Originally Posted by Tarrant Rahl
Not to mention that Diablo 2 was only massively tested in Act 1 - nobody expected 40+ skeletons, 3 fast cast frozen orb sorcs, a poison nova necro, and a paladin flashing auras to be bringing the game to sub-2 FPS.Originally Posted by Daemonaz
Actually, Diablo 2 ran awesome on my old voodoo system. It just never really worked on any new Direct3D card, due to the poor implementation of Direct3D support. Then again, like I mentioned, you can hardly blame them for developing a game for 3-4 years for voodoo which was by then the only real standard in 3D gaming. They could hardly have predicted that a few years later voodoo was totally bought out of the market.Originally Posted by MasterNightfall
I don't recall the technical specs of my old machine, but it ran horribly on it. Admittedly, it was an old machine, though. I couldn't even play with more than 1-2 other players in the game, or I would stay locked at 0 fps until they left. D2 runs much better on my new(er) system, but considering it's leaps and bounds above the specs, I'm quite disappointed at its performance. It would seem D2 just loves to eat system resources, no matter how much you have available.
| Thumbs Up: |
| Received: 0 |
I have an older AMD system in the other room, think it's a 466Mhz k6-2+ with a voodoo 3 2000 in it, I used it for muling in diablo 2, but when I have friends over they play with me in public games. They rarely complain about it, I apologize more than they complain infact. All of them have said, it's occassionally a little jerky in 8 player games, but it's completely playable. The game really does seem to run much better in glide mode than it does in directx.
| Thumbs Up: |
| Received: 0 |
Hmmm...felt I should put some input into this thread, as the conversation has drifted towards technical rather than gameplay differences :).
Background info:
- I'm on dialup
- I'm running a higher end system (not bleeding edge but close enough: 1gig ddram, Athlon64 3200+, 128mb Radeon 9600XT, etc. etc.)
- I only just recently got into the alpha (No, I can't get you in it & even if I could I still probably wouldn't).
Here's some general information:
D2@max res (if I remember correctly it's 800x600), runs at about the same fps as running GW@1280x1024, with the graphics slider at the 'appearance' end. (GW has a higher average FPS than D2 , but they do hit in the same range)
If you keep on ball (ie - logging in every day or 2), the updates take less than a few minutes to get. And even the full download of all the updates and such - only took me a few hours for the core stuff, and about 30-45 minutes for each mission (if you're on the ball, updates usually take 15sec-2minutes at most) - my peak connection speed is 45.2Kbps, I usually get less (although I am glad I opted for the better dialup modem in this comp - the other computer's modem is fried and won't connect higher than 26.4Kbps :p)
Only time the game 'lags' (ie when I notice poor latency issues) - is when my isp starts going wacko, I have yet to be lagged even once by the game or its streaming technology :).
-------------
As for the game itself - don't run yourselves ragged mulling over it, and just take my word -
Calm down, bide your time until the Beta (or full game) - it will be well worth the wait :)
Originally Posted by Daemonaz
Hehe i had Diablo 2 RUning on the Graphics Card that it WAS designed to be run on... It was sweet :)
I had a Voodoo 5500 (im pretty sure it had 128 MB ram.. could be 64 cant quite remember now) :).
If i remember right i had 240 fps when running diablo 2 (just standing in town). Now that was fricking awesome (3dfx mode obv).
I just hated it when voodoo 5500 waas shot down :(, right after i bought it :(.