Concerns about Empire

Hello everyone. I would like to express one major concern I have about this new Total War title. Frankly I read it and it seems to be revolutionary what they intend to put into the game. But my biggest concern is not the AI or anything like that. Its this:will they try and pull a supreme commander?
Supreme Commander(SC) was an spiritual successor to the kick-ass RTS Total Annihlation. Myself and my friends were excited when we heard about it. Finally they were going to make this successor to our favorite game. It looked like it would even be better than TA! Unfortunatley are hopes were quickly dashed when we found out that you needed an super computer to run the game. And even then it was still laggy.
My question is obvious by now so I will not ask it. Personally my computer is decent. But it is by no means top of the line. I certainly hope that CA will not make Empire something that only those who have money to spend on the best computer parts will be able to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Aurelius

Hello everyone. I would like to express one major concern I have about this new Total War title. Frankly I read it and it seems to be revolutionary what they intend to put into the game. But my biggest concern is not the AI or anything like that. Its this:will they try and pull a supreme commander?
Supreme Commander(SC) was an spiritual successor to the kick-ass RTS Total Annihlation. Myself and my friends were excited when we heard about it. Finally they were going to make this successor to our favorite game. It looked like it would even be better than TA! Unfortunatley are hopes were quickly dashed when we found out that you needed an super computer to run the game. And even then it was still laggy.
My question is obvious by now so I will not ask it. Personally my computer is decent. But it is by no means top of the line. I certainly hope that CA will not make Empire something that only those who have money to spend on the best computer parts will be able to play.

---

What ze eck do you mean? I can play Supreme Commander at the highest settings on a coomputer that only cost me 1300 dollars CANADIAN. Dude you got ripped...

CA dont make generally high requirements for games. If you can run M2TW on high with no lag, you should be able to play medium settings with no lag.

:shrug:

pever's right I can play M2TW on my piece(which is lackluster at best) on medium or low settings I cant remember with little or no lag. I doubt it will require anything that'll make you have to buy a super computer. I know I'll have to either get a new one or upgrade though. :sweatdrop:

im not that concerned, CA are pretty generous
i thought it was gonna be some huge major problem/concern :P

I can still run M2TW fine on my 3-year old rig with only 512mb of ram. That said, I am getting a system upgrade soon so I can play ETW totally maxed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

CA dont make generally high requirements for games. If you can run M2TW on high with no lag, you should be able to play medium settings with no lag.

:shrug:

---

I have nearly 3 gigs of processor speed, 1 gig of Ram, and a 256 video card and M2TW lags the ever-loving-taff out of my machine on the lowest settings. :(

Vuk

EDIT: OLIVER! You stole my one of a kind avatar!! :P

Quote:

---

I have nearly 3 gigs of processor speed, 1 gig of Ram, and a 256 video card and M2TW lags the ever-loving-taff out of my machine on the lowest settings. :(

---

Somethings not right there :sweatdrop:

lol, your telling me? :P

Im concerned bout the fact that by the time the game comes out, i dont have the money to upgrade...

Supreme Commander is a beast, but that thing is a simulator that happens to be an RTS. Seing how T2 Artillery and take out gunships that happen to be in the way... there's a slight difference between that and TW.

Medieval Ii Total War Is Awesome..... It Owns Every Game :))))

My machine has a nice CPU with 2 gigs of very fast ram and a 512 meg video card. The frame rate tanks with huge units in big armies in cities with high settings at 1024x768.

It is no consolation to some of us that the game might run passably well with small units at the lowest settings. “Boo!” to all that I say! We want to experience the very best the game has to offer. For us, I doubt if the technology will even exist to do so at release. It hasn’t with any other Total War.

Not that this is altogether a bad thing. It just means that as time wears on these games can get better. It also means that the best is out of reach when the game arrives, and that’s the disappointing part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I have nearly 3 gigs of processor speed, 1 gig of Ram, and a 256 video card and M2TW lags the ever-loving-taff out of my machine on the lowest settings. :(

Vuk

EDIT: OLIVER! You stole my one of a kind avatar!! :P

---

Well, you haven't said what the video card is. Onboard memory is not the sole gauge for performance when it comes to video cards....it could have 512mb and still be a complete piece of crap.

Developers generally design games to take advantage of the absolute best technology available at the time and also plan towards what is going to be avialable to the masses at the time of the game's release, so they will upgrade throughout the development -- hence most newly realeased games will ususally tax the crap out of the best systems if the game is played on its highest settings.

Any mainstream developer has to do this to stay ahead of the curve and it's just the nature of the industry.

Because of this it is the plight of the PC gamer to have to upgrade constantly if they want to play the latest and greatest. The only alternative is go over to the dark side and become a console gamer--then you only have to upgrade about every 2 to 3 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

Well, you haven't said what the video card is. Onboard memory is not the sole gauge for performance when it comes to video cards....it could have 512mb and still be a complete piece of crap.

---

ATI Radeon Xpress 1150

It has 400mhz of speed and pretty decent all around specs. I don't think it should run so slowely. :P Got a friend with the same rig, and his handles things much better. :P

Vuk

umm.. Vuk that is not a good card. Also the amount of video ram is not everything. You can have 1gig of video ram and a slow clock/mem speed and it will be beat by a 256mb card with fast clock and mem. And I think people can play it a decent settings with just a small upgrade. Technology moves on. Your same computer 5 years ago might not beable to play all your games. Yes computer gamming is expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forward Observer

Because of this it is the plight of the PC gamer to have to upgrade constantly if they want to play the latest and greatest. The only alternative is go over to the dark side and become a console gamer--then you only have to upgrade about every 2 to 3 years

---

Well, the (PC) gaming market is essentially split in two: the high priced new games and hardware and the low priced older games and hardware. You can hardly blame the industry for catering to those willing to spend a lot of money for something they could get for 1/2 to 1/5 of the price a year (or two) later...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Aurelius

Hello everyone. I would like to express one major concern I have about this new Total War title. Frankly I read it and it seems to be revolutionary what they intend to put into the game. But my biggest concern is not the AI or anything like that. Its this:will they try and pull a supreme commander?
Supreme Commander(SC) was an spiritual successor to the kick-ass RTS Total Annihlation. Myself and my friends were excited when we heard about it. Finally they were going to make this successor to our favorite game. It looked like it would even be better than TA! Unfortunatley are hopes were quickly dashed when we found out that you needed an super computer to run the game. And even then it was still laggy.
My question is obvious by now so I will not ask it. Personally my computer is decent. But it is by no means top of the line. I certainly hope that CA will not make Empire something that only those who have money to spend on the best computer parts will be able to play.

---

What I am more concerned about is them trying to do too much, gameplay wise.

Fight on land, and on sea and in the houses of government and this and that and something else they just decided on at the spur of the moment...

I am also concerned that they will royally bollox tactics. This is my area of expertise and I am very worried that my favorite game company will make an arse of themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forward Observer

Developers generally design games to take advantage of the absolute best technology available at the time and also plan towards what is going to be avialable to the masses at the time of the game's release, so they will upgrade throughout the development -- hence most newly realeased games will ususally tax the crap out of the best systems if the game is played on its highest settings.

Any mainstream developer has to do this to stay ahead of the curve and it's just the nature of the industry.

Because of this it is the plight of the PC gamer to have to upgrade constantly if they want to play the latest and greatest. The only alternative is go over to the dark side and become a console gamer--then you only have to upgrade about every 2 to 3 years

---

It sounds fair, but not fair enough. All these upgrades cost too much. Sometimes I think they aren't even paying careful attention to older machines.

Turning to a console seems a very good choice to save money though it has its disadvantages. Whether it's the "dark side..." Hmmmm.... Since PC gaming requires you to upgrade a lot and spend much more monetary resources (and can possibly provide even more frustration than a console), it would be fair to consider PC gaming the "dark side". If you ask me, both console and PC gaming are dark, but PC gaming has the darker side.

Well PC gaming is expensive.I just bought a new rig which I think will run E:TW maxed out and it was something like 1850 US Dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

It sounds fair, but not fair enough. All these upgrades cost too much. Sometimes I think they aren't even paying careful attention to older machines.

Turning to a console seems a very good choice to save money though it has its disadvantages. Whether it's the "dark side..." Hmmmm.... Since PC gaming requires you to upgrade a lot and spend much more monetary resources (and can possibly provide even more frustration than a console), it would be fair to consider PC gaming the "dark side". If you ask me, both console and PC gaming are dark, but PC gaming has the darker side.

---

I know people who have spent close to $5000 to play the same types of games I play on my PC on their Playstation 4. I spent $800 on my rig, and it can run most all games out there (it could run 'em all when I got it). I only have to pay $50 per game also; some of those Playstation 4 games went for $80 when they first came out. Also the depth that the PC has to offer (as far as the substance of the games) cannot be matched by consoles. I don't care what you say, PC gaming is the way to go. (Did I metion the ability to mod, or to be able to make games out of scratch?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belgolas

umm.. Vuk that is not a good card. Also the amount of video ram is not everything. You can have 1gig of video ram and a slow clock/mem speed and it will be beat by a 256mb card with fast clock and mem. And I think people can play it a decent settings with just a small upgrade. Technology moves on. Your same computer 5 years ago might not beable to play all your games. Yes computer gamming is expensive.

---

Never said it was good, I said it was decent. (and it is) It is well within the standards for running M2TW. My friend has a rig with almost the EXACT same specs (though his isn't a portable) and M2TW runs smoothly on his.


Vuk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk Brankovic

I know people who have spent close to $5000 to play the same types of games I play on my PC on their Playstation 4. I spent $800 on my rig, and it can run most all games out there (it could run 'em all when I got it). I only have to pay $50 per game also; some of those Playstation 4 games went for $80 when they first came out. Also the depth that the PC has to offer (as far as the substance of the games) cannot be matched by consoles. I don't care what you say, PC gaming is the way to go. (Did I metion the ability to mod, or to be able to make games out of scratch?)

---

PS4? They exist?

$5000? Explain.

Perhaps your machine is able to run almost all games out there (can they run them on high settings?), but the question was more about the large picture. It was about having to upgrade for PCs more often than consoles. PC gaming is generally more expensive than console gaming: it is undeniable. And there are certain drawbacks too for PC gaming, such as copy protections that can have a variety of influences.

In the large picture, regarding PC gaming and then comparing it to console gaming.... *clears his nose* ....Console gaming is cheaper and easier; PC gaming is more expensive and can be more troublesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

PS4? They exist?

$5000? Explain.

Perhaps your machine is able to run almost all games out there (can they run them on high settings?), but the question was more about the large picture. It was about having to upgrade for PCs more often than consoles. PC gaming is generally more expensive than console gaming: it is undeniable. And there are certain drawbacks too for PC gaming, such as copy protections that can have a variety of influences.

In the large picture, regarding PC gaming and then comparing it to console gaming.... *clears his nose* ....Console gaming is cheaper and easier; PC gaming is more expensive and can be more troublesome.

---

Ooops, said that twice. :embarassed:
Meant 3 :P. Haven't had my coffee yet. :P
In the last 8 years I have have a total of three gaming computers, and all of them relatively inexpensive. (the first one was actually the most expensive, but I started shopping smarter after that:P) Most people spend a LOT more money on consoles than I do on computers, and there has never been a game that I haven't been able to play. I had two wait two years to play BF2, but most games will run on the machine I have when they come out.
I have spent thousands of dollars on computers (I currently have 12 :P), but I don't think I spent over $5,000 on gaming rigs. Most people who play console games spend a lot more than $5,000 a year on consoles. I admit that I spend decidedly less than most computer gamers, but computer gaming is generally cheaper than console gaming. Also, you have the depth that computer games offer, that console games can't go near. (And the moddability ;))
You don't need a console for the shallow crap they offer. Heck, you could just go down to the local arcade. ;)

Vuk

well if the game is crap who cares if your computer runs it or not? this is the least of my concerns.

Sounds like people are less concerned about Empire, and more about their computers and/or wallets...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk Brankovic

Ooops, said that twice. :embarassed:
Meant 3 :P. Haven't had my coffee yet. :P
In the last 8 years I have have a total of three gaming computers, and all of them relatively inexpensive. (the first one was actually the most expensive, but I started shopping smarter after that:P) Most people spend a LOT more money on consoles than I do on computers, and there has never been a game that I haven't been able to play. I had two wait two years to play BF2, but most games will run on the machine I have when they come out.
I have spent thousands of dollars on computers (I currently have 12 :P), but I don't think I spent over $5,000 on gaming rigs. Most people who play console games spend a lot more than $5,000 a year on consoles. I admit that I spend decidedly less than most computer gamers, but computer gaming is generally cheaper than console gaming. Also, you have the depth that computer games offer, that console games can't go near. (And the moddability ;))
You don't need a console for the shallow crap they offer. Heck, you could just go down to the local arcade. ;)

Vuk

---

I have never met someone who spent $5000 a year on consoles. I assume your speaking about Canadian Currency, but even then, that's a lot of money. I assume most gamers don't get more than 10 games a year ( I get just 3-4 new pc games a year), but still, that's roughly $500 american. You don't have to buy a new console for 2-3 years....I think the last generation was actually more like 4-5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk Brankovic

Ooops, said that twice. :embarassed:
Meant 3 :P. Haven't had my coffee yet. :P
In the last 8 years I have have a total of three gaming computers, and all of them relatively inexpensive. (the first one was actually the most expensive, but I started shopping smarter after that:P) Most people spend a LOT more money on consoles than I do on computers, and there has never been a game that I haven't been able to play. I had two wait two years to play BF2, but most games will run on the machine I have when they come out.
I have spent thousands of dollars on computers (I currently have 12 :P), but I don't think I spent over $5,000 on gaming rigs. Most people who play console games spend a lot more than $5,000 a year on consoles. I admit that I spend decidedly less than most computer gamers, but computer gaming is generally cheaper than console gaming. Also, you have the depth that computer games offer, that console games can't go near. (And the moddability ;))
You don't need a console for the shallow crap they offer. Heck, you could just go down to the local arcade. ;)

Vuk

---

But this is hardly a matter of subjectivity, of personal experiences, or isolated observations of particular individuals and the likes that fit the argument you bring forth.

If we generally and objectively compare PC gaming to console gaming it is obvious PC gaming "would require more, and expensive, upgrades" while console gaming does not. Consoles are standardized for years, easier to develop for, cheaper, less hassle, and its games are usually very much optimized while still maintainng (or improving) good graphical quality during a generation reaching limits and even attempting to go beyond; while PCs are wide-range, difficult to develop for, more expensive, more troublesome, and the games can easily ascend too much graphically/technically for all widerange PCs to even run optimally and beautifully.

(Side question: you still haven't explained about the $5000 people spend regarding console gaming.)

My concern about ETW regards major hardware requirements. It is generally a pity that the games industry focuses so much on graphics and it seems less on gameplay. If the gameplay and such more important core matters are broken or lacking such as immersion, story, etc., graphics won't fix them..... but they might distract the ones who are easily stunned by this (who hopefully do not make a great number........... yeah right :laugh4:).

Quote:

---

Oooo look at the pretty graphics! I can run it on maxed out on a resolution of 2400xsomething with AA and AF and this and that... blah blah blah.... MYY COMPIOOTER PWNS URS!!!!1one IF My coputer wod be alive, he beat urs!!!!112

---

:laugh4: That is often an attitude I would encounter with people who play games.

Well i can say to you that graphics really matter in the industry of gaming.Many gamers care more about graphics than other things.Many of us here at the ORG want to have better gameplay not graphics but i don't think someone will listen to us.Please don't complain so much about hardware requests, go play on PS3 or smth else because PC Gaming is expensive.




Galapagos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

But this is hardly a matter of subjectivity, of personal experiences, or isolated observations of particular individuals and the likes that fit the argument you bring forth.

If we generally and objectively compare PC gaming to console gaming it is obvious PC gaming "would require more, and expensive, upgrades" while console gaming does not. Consoles are standardized for years, easier to develop for, cheaper, less hassle, and its games are usually very much optimized while still maintainng (or improving) good graphical quality during a generation reaching limits and even attempting to go beyond; while PCs are wide-range, difficult to develop for, more expensive, more troublesome, and the games can easily ascend too much graphically/technically for all widerange PCs to even run optimally and beautifully.

(Side question: you still haven't explained about the $5000 people spend regarding console gaming.)

My concern about ETW regards major hardware requirements. It is generally a pity that the games industry focuses so much on graphics and it seems less on gameplay. If the gameplay and such more important core matters are broken or lacking such as immersion, story, etc., graphics won't fix them..... but they might distract the ones who are easily stunned by this (who hopefully do not make a great number........... yeah right :laugh4:).


:laugh4: That is often an attitude I would encounter with people who play games.

---

I you look at my post, you will see that I said that I did not spen more than $5000(US) dollars on computer gaming in the last 8 years. What I meant to say is that in 8 years a console gamer would spend a lot more. OMG! What was I thinking yesterday? I am making an ass of myself. :P lol

I do not know if computer gamers spend more on gaming on average than console gamers as my experience with gamers is limited to a few friends. :P I have, however, played both modern computer and console games and can truthfully say that computer games have a lot more depth. Console games are arcadish (is that a word :P) and shallow. I guess in the end it comes down to a matter of preference.

Vuk