5 replies to this topic

[lensco]

I'm aware there's a topic on Myst V crashing, but since I'm only experiencing bad performance I started this topic.

So I'm on an iMac (17", 1.8ghz G5, 1gb ram, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64mb, Tiger), and in lots of places in the game, gameplay gets unacceptably sloppy. I have to turn the video settings really really low to get a comfortable framerate (down to 800x600, no setting more than medium, and no dynamic reflections).

Now why is that?? I mean, if you compare my specs to the required or recommended specs, I think I get away pretty good, no? I read that some people enjoy playing the game on their iBooks or G4's, is that right?

I know I won't get the best possible video from the game, but I wasn't really expecting to look at a 800x600 resolution on my 17" either, with no antialiasing!

[Eric5h5]

lensco, on November 5th 2005, 07:56 AM, said:

I mean, if you compare my specs to the required or recommended specs, I think I get away pretty good, no?

No.  The box does say "FX 5700 or higher recommended for Macs."  I wasn't aware there was ever a FX 5700 for the Mac, but the FX 5200 is pretty low-end and can't really hope to run such a graphics-intensive game that well I'm afraid.  I wouldn't expect iBook users to be any better off, though the Powerbook should be OK.  (I wasn't too happy about the switch from pre-rendered to realtime 3D for this very reason...sure, my X800 runs it with max detail at high resolutions and gets good framerates at all times, but most people aren't going to have a high-end card like that.)

--Eric

[Thorzdad]

I've run Myst-V in my G5 with 3 different cards and can say that 64megs is not enough to run the game acceptably without cranking all the setting down to fugly levels. And even then, it's still a choppy mess.

[rampancy]

What navigation mode are you using? If you're using the FPS-style navigation scheme, performance is playable, but pretty bad, frame-rate wise. However, I think the game works pretty well in the classic and "enhanced classic" modes.

I'm on a dual-1.25 Ghz G4, with an R9000pro.

[ajmas]

For the record, from trying thing demo:
  - ok with PowerBook G4, with ATI Radeon 9700 (128MB graphics memory)
  - no go with PowerMac G4, with ATI Rage 128 (32MB graphics memory)

Must admit that I really miss the prerendered scenes. They were one thing that made Myst stand out. Every other game was trying to have fast paced action, freedom of movement, and kinda ok graphics. Myst offered stunning worlds to explore with seductive visuals, something to think about and worlds to emerse youself in. The new version seems to fit inbetween the two and I am not sure whether I am totally convinced. Not thay saying any of this will change a thing, but just wanted my 5c.

[Eric5h5]

ajmas, on November 24th 2005, 09:53 AM, said:

The new version seems to fit inbetween the two and I am not sure whether I am totally convinced. Not thay saying any of this will change a thing, but just wanted my 5c.

For what it's worth, I agree.  Graphics-wise, Myst IV is going to remain the pinacle of the series...the "immersion" you get with real-time 3D unfortunately doesn't begin to make up for the significantly worse graphics.  (I mean, they're really good for real-time 3D, but can't compare to pre-rendered.)  The 3D actors are fantastic for 3D characters but not remotely as realistic as real actors.  I just can't believe in the game as "real."  It's nice, but now it's just a game.  RealMyst worked, but that's because Myst is so old that real-time 3D today CAN compare to to the pre-rendered graphics of that time.  (Plus it still used video clips of actors.)

--Eric