Jump to content


Empire at War


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#1 Blackshawk

Blackshawk

    Narcissist Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1790 posts
  • Location:Blackshawk Inc.

Posted 02 December 2006 - 08:17 PM

I beat this horse to death in the forthcoming Episode 3, but I want to hear what other people think.  ;)

Aspyr has said, and I quote, "one of our main areas of focus has been to make sure the game runs well on the entire lineup of Intel Macs, including the Mac Book and Mac mini." Not to sound rude or anything, but what the heck?

Empire at War is a 3D RTS game, with some fairly intense graphical effects and high unit caps going around. This game had better be scalable to an extreme point because I do NOT want to see this game crippled just so casual gamers can pop it in and play through. I have to admit this statement has me worried. I can understand catering to casual gamers up to a point, so long as the hardcore are also satisfied.

I'm going to pick this game up for my PC sometime in the coming weeks and give you my impressions on how the port should be handled.
I Can't Feel My Torso Your Gaming Fix From Blackshawk

I'm going to the vet to get tutored.

#2 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 08:42 PM

View PostBlackshawk, on December 2nd 2006, 09:17 PM, said:

I have to admit this statement has me worried.

That doesn't worry me a bit.  The original company generally has to sign off on ports, and I don't see LucasArts allowing a cut-down port.  All it means is that Aspyr is having to optimize graphics stuff more than usual and/or make sure the low-detail options work OK on the GMA950.  What's a lot more worrisome is the lack of mention of PPC, so at this point I assume it's Intel-only and therefore I'm not interested unless proven otherwise.

--Eric

#3 Blackshawk

Blackshawk

    Narcissist Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1790 posts
  • Location:Blackshawk Inc.

Posted 02 December 2006 - 09:09 PM

That has me worried also. Episode 3 addresses this, so I shan't rant much.
I Can't Feel My Torso Your Gaming Fix From Blackshawk

I'm going to the vet to get tutored.

#4 Timmy

Timmy

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 06:53 AM

I'm glad since I have a mac mini.  :P

I'm sure it has to do with making sure the GMA 950 is properly supported by the software since alot of games do not support it witch probably accounts for most of the performance issues.

So i doubt degrading of the graphics would take place, most likely improvements would be made on the code.

#5 the_cloudgazer

the_cloudgazer

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 07:18 AM

I can't see this game NOT been PPC playable.

The majority of macs out there are still PPC.
It would be silly to cut off the majority of your buyers. It'll still be some time yet before developers/porters drop support for PPC

At least, I hope so.
:(

#6 dojoboy

dojoboy

    DJJ is the greatest!

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • Steam ID:dojoboy65
  • Location:Tanasi (USA)
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 December 2006 - 07:30 AM

View Postthe_cloudgazer, on December 3rd 2006, 08:18 AM, said:

I can't see this game NOT been PPC playable.

It's probably intel only for two reasons:

(1) Aspyr has asked for intel testers
(2) Aspyr has not asked for PPC testers

Quote

..., we're looking for people to test out EaW on Intel Mac systems. -- Ryan Stocks, Aspyr

There is no logical reason to ask for intel testers only for a game that would be a UB port.  This would be their,....what number intel port?

View Postthe_cloudgazer, on December 3rd 2006, 08:18 AM, said:

The majority of macs out there are still PPC.
It would be silly to cut off the majority of your buyers. It'll still be some time yet before developers/porters drop support for PPC

I suppose you have to consider investment into a port.  Not all games will be a blockbuster upon release.  These games provide income/profit over a long period of time.  There will be EaW games selling 2 years from now.
"There is no end to sorrow."  ---Van Gogh

#7 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 03 December 2006 - 08:15 AM

or, perhaps, they realise that an extra bout of testing on intel machines is needed as Civ 4's release was really quite buggy and problematic...

But it is entirely possible that its going to be intel only... I think the fact that Glenda came out straight away saying that Prey is going to be a UB, but has kept quiet about EaW speaks volumes...
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#8 iRolley

iRolley

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Antibes - France

Posted 03 December 2006 - 09:45 AM

View Postthe_cloudgazer, on December 3rd 2006, 07:18 AM, said:

The majority of macs out there are still PPC.
....

Yes, but how many of those are able to properly play games? The G5's are about the only able PPC out there. There has been a lot of optimization for G4 and G3 and OSX still runs great on those machines. I have an iBook and G4 tower. But for gaming, I guess we should consider the number of G5s and not PPC.

#9 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 10:34 AM

View Postteflon, on December 3rd 2006, 09:15 AM, said:

I think the fact that Glenda came out straight away saying that Prey is going to be a UB, but has kept quiet about EaW speaks volumes...

An announcement would be nice.  That way you avoid getting lots of people excited over nothing (e.g. the HOMMV fiasco).

--Eric

#10 dojoboy

dojoboy

    DJJ is the greatest!

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • Steam ID:dojoboy65
  • Location:Tanasi (USA)
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 December 2006 - 11:25 AM

View Postteflon, on December 3rd 2006, 09:15 AM, said:

or, perhaps, they realise that an extra bout of testing on intel machines is needed as Civ 4's release was really quite buggy and problematic...

I'm not convinced that Civ4 was buggy and problematic as a result of the port.  Sure, there are always issues w/ a new release.  Honestly, a great number of issues were the result of under-specification machines, and ATI cards.

I feel the call for intel testers is in effort to blanket cover the various rigs out there.

View Postteflon, on December 3rd 2006, 09:15 AM, said:

But it is entirely possible that its going to be intel only... I think the fact that Glenda came out straight away saying that Prey is going to be a UB, but has kept quiet about EaW speaks volumes...

My guess as to the silence on EaW's chip code is an internal debate on whether to inculde PPC now, now that there seems to be a buzz about it.
"There is no end to sorrow."  ---Van Gogh

#11 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 03 December 2006 - 06:08 PM

View Postdojoboy, on December 3rd 2006, 05:25 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that Civ4 was buggy and problematic as a result of the port.  Sure, there are always issues w/ a new release.  Honestly, a great number of issues were the result of under-specification machines, and ATI cards.

it was buggy and problematic on intel machines in particular, however. While theres certain kinds of bugs which can only be discovered when the game is out in the open, having another 5 testers on different permutations of machines doesnt hurt. As you seem to point out yourself anyway.

Quote

I feel the call for intel testers is in effort to blanket cover the various rigs out there.
My guess as to the silence on EaW's chip code is an internal debate on whether to inculde PPC now, now that there seems to be a buzz about it.

Its possible that theyre developing simultaneously right now, but are focussing on the intel so that if they feel PPC is eating their souls they can drop it and focus on getting the game out in good order for intel users...
or, theyre developing for intel now, and seeing how well it goes, with the possibility of adding PPC support and testing in the new year. After all, its all got to be done in XCode...
Or, they are, as you said, simply debating wether or not to support PPC.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#12 GlendaAdams

GlendaAdams

    Maverick Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 07:32 PM

I'm a little surprised that the reaction to the fact that we're optimizing the game is to assume somehow we'd turn off high-end features on more powerful machines.  I don't think we've ever done that.  We're simply trying to make sure we do the best we can on the low end machines, so the game is playable there.  In general that kind of optimization makes the game faster for both low and high end.  There are some cases where we'll turn off a few effects just on the low end to boost performance, but that is a specific tweak targeted only to those particular machines.

A big reason we're really focusing on support for the MacBooks is that they are a huge portion of Apple's sales these days (and it looks like for 2007), and we can't ignore that.  The mini comes along for the ride since it's a similar spec machine.  Luckily EAW is a game that had a fairly scalable graphics engine to start, so it was possible for us to get it running on the integrated graphics.  A lot of the games we've done just can't be scaled that far down.

Glenda
Glenda Adams
Maverick Software

#13 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 03 December 2006 - 08:29 PM

I think thats probably what Blackshawk meant in the first place, that the game is scaled really far back to fit with integrated graphics... He just worded it quite badly is all...

either way, I think its great that youll be supporting the entire range of Apple's computers with this game, and as many of your games as possible, even though I suspect it means a lot more work goes in. As you said yourself, well all be seeing performance improvements, so it can only be a good thing.

Still no word about UB or not... :(
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#14 Blackshawk

Blackshawk

    Narcissist Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1790 posts
  • Location:Blackshawk Inc.

Posted 03 December 2006 - 08:59 PM

Quote

I'm a little surprised that the reaction to the fact that we're optimizing the game is to assume somehow we'd turn off high-end features on more powerful machines. I don't think we've ever done that. We're simply trying to make sure we do the best we can on the low end machines, so the game is playable there. In general that kind of optimization makes the game faster for both low and high end. There are some cases where we'll turn off a few effects just on the low end to boost performance, but that is a specific tweak targeted only to those particular machines.

A big reason we're really focusing on support for the MacBooks is that they are a huge portion of Apple's sales these days (and it looks like for 2007), and we can't ignore that. The mini comes along for the ride since it's a similar spec machine. Luckily EAW is a game that had a fairly scalable graphics engine to start, so it was possible for us to get it running on the integrated graphics. A lot of the games we've done just can't be scaled that far down.
Great news Glenda, glad to hear it. :happy: I wasn't exactly despairing, but the announcements did have me worried a little bit. Any comment on PPC for Empire at War?
I Can't Feel My Torso Your Gaming Fix From Blackshawk

I'm going to the vet to get tutored.

#15 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8102 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 04 December 2006 - 12:51 AM

View Postdojoboy, on December 3rd 2006, 07:25 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that Civ4 was buggy and problematic as a result of the port.  Sure, there are always issues w/ a new release.  Honestly, a great number of issues were the result of under-specification machines, and ATI cards.
Also don't forget that a lot of the problems had nothing to do with the port itself, but with Apple's updated OpenGL implementation in MacOS X 10.4.7. You can't blame anything on Aspyr.

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#16 Timmy

Timmy

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 04 December 2006 - 01:40 AM

I've heard civ4 is a bitch on PC as well.

#17 the_cloudgazer

the_cloudgazer

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 04 December 2006 - 03:50 AM

OK - now I'm getting worried.
:(

No mention of PPC at all.

Damn - looks like I was been foolishly optimistic.
And this is really one game I've been looking forward to for ages.

Looks like I may have to upgrade my PC afterall.

#18 Cain

Cain

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 04 December 2006 - 08:59 AM

View Postthe_cloudgazer, on December 4th 2006, 02:50 AM, said:

OK - now I'm getting worried.
:(

No mention of PPC at all.

Damn - looks like I was been foolishly optimistic.
And this is really one game I've been looking forward to for ages.

I've been looking forward to this one as well. Considering this game should run on a large spectrum of PPC machines why not make it universal? Glenda, can you give us a final word on this?

#19 GlendaAdams

GlendaAdams

    Maverick Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 04 December 2006 - 11:48 AM

View PostCain, on December 4th 2006, 08:59 AM, said:

I've been looking forward to this one as well. Considering this game should run on a large spectrum of PPC machines why not make it universal? Glenda, can you give us a final word on this?

Sorry, the reason I've kept mum until now is we don't have an official set of minimum requirements.  Until we have decided on those we won't be able to say whether it will support PowerPC's.   We haven't made the final decision, but I'd recommend looking at upgrading to Intel if you still have a PowerPC Mac in 2007.  I think next year we will see several Intel-only games, regardless of whether EAW is one of them, so it is going to be year to save up for a hardware upgrade.

Glenda
Glenda Adams
Maverick Software

#20 Cain

Cain

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 04 December 2006 - 11:57 AM

View PostGlendaAdams, on December 4th 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

Sorry, the reason I've kept mum until now is we don't have an official set of minimum requirements.  Until we have decided on those we won't be able to say whether it will support PowerPC's.   We haven't made the final decision, but I'd recommend looking at upgrading to Intel if you still have a PowerPC Mac in 2007.  I think next year we will see several Intel-only games, regardless of whether EAW is one of them, so it is going to be year to save up for a hardware upgrade.

Glenda

Thanks so much for getting back to us Glenda! It's nice to see you haven't given up on the possibility of a universal binary. Here's hoping! :)