[archermitch]

There are a lot of new games with high spects, but if you think about it, GH3 doesn't need the physics or the graphics. It just needs an excellent framerate. So I was wondering what the system requirements are.

[teflon]

GH3 does need physics (it uses Havok for uber realistic string twanging), and while the graphics could be toned down, remember that theyre designed solely for the X360 and PS3, and are being ported over from there...

hopefully, Aspyr can still make it really scaleable, but i think it will probably exclude integrated graphics.

[Dark_Archon]

To answer your question, I doubt integrated graphics will be a problem.

[Janichsan]

Dark_Archon, on September 30th 2007, 07:46 PM, said:

To answer your question, I doubt integrated graphics will be a problem.

It's likely they will. I don't know if you have listened to the IMG Podcast interview with Glenda Adams, but she mentions there that GH3 is actually a pretty demanding game: it has been developed to use quite a lot of the Xbox 360's more sophisticated graphic features.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

It's also coming to PS2 and Wii though... I'm sure if they can make modes for those they can make a mode for lower end Macs.

[Janichsan]

That would probably require some major changes to the code Aspyr uses - the Mac/PC version is based on the Xbox version.

[GlendaAdams]

archermitch, on September 30th 2007, 07:55 AM, said:

There are a lot of new games with high spects, but if you think about it, GH3 doesn't need the physics or the graphics. It just needs an excellent framerate. So I was wondering what the system requirements are.

We're working very hard to set get the game to run on as many machines as possible, but GH3 presents an interesting challenge. The 360 version (which the PC/Mac is based on, the PS2 & Wii are totally separate) is a very graphics & thread heavy game. Lots of special effects, high poly models, and lots of characters (I've seen hundreds of people in the crowd scene at a couple venues). And on top of that it requires probably the highest consistent frame rate of any game I've ever worked with. Because timing has to be so exact (especially on hard/expert modes), the frame rate really has to be 30-60 fps on even the lowest config. And the closer to 60 the better.

Integrated graphics are definitely not going to make the cut at launch (we may try to work with Intel to see if there is any way to get it to run on them after we ship). PowerPC is iffy right now, there are a lot of heavy Intel SSE optimizations for animation and math code, which give us a big speed boost. But we're working on every angle we can.

Final specs will be set in the next week or two, so it won't be long.

Glenda

[Eric5h5]

GlendaAdams, on September 30th 2007, 03:49 PM, said:

The 360 version (which the PC/Mac is based on

Quote

PowerPC is iffy right now

Oh, the irony.

--Eric

[archermitch]

That's ok. I have a Wii. What's the Mac/PC peripheral like?

[bookman]

I feel sorry for Aspyr, trying to do right by Mac users, yet Apple makes it hard by putting popsnizzle-T-e graphics in what is probably their most popular computer, the MacBook.

[archermitch]

I agree completely. Integrated graphics are very rarely acceptable.

[teflon]

i third that sentiment.
even something rubbish like a X1300 would be preferable by a long long long way.

thanks for the confirm Glenda, an i look forward to seeing the specs shortly

[GlendaAdams]

Eric5h5, on September 30th 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

Oh, the irony.

--Eric

Yea, I wish IBM hadn't changed up the Altivec instructions/register set on the 360 PPC chips, we'd have been able to just use that optimized code right away on the Mac. As it is it's a rewrite

Glenda

[archermitch]

sigh, the poor Mac...

[Eric5h5]

GlendaAdams, on October 1st 2007, 07:28 AM, said:

Yea, I wish IBM hadn't changed up the Altivec instructions/register set on the 360 PPC chips, we'd have been able to just use that optimized code right away on the Mac. As it is it's a rewrite

That was an amazingly tactful way of saying "The Altivec stuff on the 360 PPC chips is different, you nitwit!" Somehow I'd avoided knowing about that...though I admit I haven't been paying much attention to the 360; I'd heard they were using G5s as development machines at least early on but that's about it.

--Eric

[the Battle Cat]

Eric5h5, on October 1st 2007, 10:01 AM, said:

That was an amazingly tactful way of saying ...

I sent out a memo asking people to be tactful with you because of your... problem.

[Eric5h5]

the Battle Cat, on October 1st 2007, 04:03 PM, said:

I sent out a memo asking people to be tactful with you because of your... problem.

What problem?? Are you saying I have a problem?! 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM! What problem is that??? I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM!!! STOP SAYING I HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!!1111111

--Eric

[Janichsan]

Calm, Mungo! Calm...Down! You never kill a moderator! And drop that hatchet!

[teflon]

Eric5h5, on October 1st 2007, 06:01 PM, said:

I'd heard they were using G5s as development machines at least early on but that's about it.

which meant that all the engines had to be rewritten for the release 360s... an odd move if i may say so, but probably one made by microsoft and not IBM, possibly to optimise the chip for DX as opposed to the other way around, but also to hinder attempts to play X360 games on the then supposed long line of upcoming G5 computers (it being in a world prior to the intel mac announcements) under emulation...

[archermitch]

So as a quick note, Starcraft 2 and Gears of War are out the for integrated graphics as well, right?