FFXIV Hardware Requirements

[Scythiroth]

I'm waiting till FFXIV beta comes out, then probably get the latest video/cpu etc upgrade my PC to run it at max settings, kind of why I'm hesitating on upgrading "now" because I don't really need an upgrade "now" to play anything.

But I rather not be playing ffxiv on eyecandy mode at 5-10fps like people on wow/ffxi and think its normal, I need 30fps minimum...! Anything lower makes me cringe ;/

I'm doing the same thing pretty much. No reason to upgrade now when all of the components will be cheaper in a few months anyways.

[Vacht]

Can the experience really differ that much based on graphics? Not much... we all love NES right? Isnt it about playing the gmae more than anything?

I met a lot of PC gamers when i played FFXI that were different from other PC gamers i had met on games like DAOC and asheron's call. It makes me wonder if PC gamers have a bigger sensation for graphics than console gamers? I guess we can be both, its not one or the other.

Anyways....

After SE's experience with sony and ffxi, i dont think SE is going to rely on sony and their PS3 for subscribers... sony straight up dicked over SE when they discontinued the harddrive and stopped production of it. PC users became more prevalent than console gamers, unless you picked up a PS2 and harddrive when they came out. It was shitty to play on PS2 and not be able to join a linkshell because PS2 didnt have ventrilo capabilities. Anyways, the slim PS2 meant no more new FFXI subscribers from sony. Sony straight up fucked everyone on that harddrive. I think there was support for socom and FFXI. Its almost like the variety of ports on the PS2 were just for show. But PS3 is a whole new machine that is becoming more proficient with running gaming software than PCs. Although PS3 is a completely different machine and i think its going to do exactly what the ps2 was dreamt of doing for consoles with harddrives and online gaming. Im really anticipating the next generation of consoles...

I still wonder, but also believe that whoever said earlier that "if anything PS3 users will be held back by PC users because it would be more costly to buy a computer that has as much availability to commit to gaming processes as strictly as the PS3 does; than it would to buy a playstation. With a mid-range gaming pc should prolly play the game just fine, and PS3 wont have the best graphics possible, but it will be in the top of graphic performance.

[Gulkeeva]

Can't experience much on a game if your playing at 5-10fps, seeing the distance of about 10feet infront of you with no shadows, no "spell animations" no "movement animations".

Yeah the gameplay is a good thing too but its not everything!

[Cream Soda]

Can the experience really differ that much based on graphics? Not much... we all love NES right? Isnt it about playing the gmae more than anything?
.

NES was designed to look like that though. When you have a game that is designed to look one way and you have to lower the settings so low to make it even playable, you're not going to be able to play the game the way it was designed to be played, as is not the issue w/ NES.

Now imagine taking those NES games you loved to play, and dumbing those graphics down. Let's take super mario 3. Instead of seeing enemies on the other side of the screen, now you can only see enemies that are within half of that distance to you. Ect.

[Vacht]

My point was that I think the PS3 graphics will be more than suitable. Its not a matter of how they are supposed to look all the way. I understand the desire to have the utmost performance along with the utmost view, but i think its best to find a compromise. I was always happy playing FFXI on PS2 in a lazyboy, rather than sitting at a PC. Most people were on PC though. I saw the graphics on PC, it was a lot better. But i dont think that will be the case with PS3. I think PS3 will provide close to high end graphics. I dont think the diffference in PC vs PS2 with FFXI will be the same difference.

I think most people should just buy a PS3 that new 250gig version is only 50 bucks more too.

[McGoonagle]

Idle curiosity about frame rates: What is the lowest frame rate considered acceptable for most applications, which I'm guessing is when most people start seeing flickering? Are the frame rates for acceptable to good to high end well-defined, or is it a subjective thing?

[aru]

That is something that is going to vary from person to person.
I'm pretty sure that movies are 24 fps so I assume that is probably about as low as is bearable by the majority of people.

[Byrthnoth]

It's subjective. Most games run at 30-60fps. TV in the US runs at 29.97 fps, while in the UK it runs at 25fps. Some videos do run at 24fps.

Here's the relevant paragraph of the wikipedia article:

In modern action-oriented games where players must visually track animated objects and react quickly, frame rates of between 30 to 60 frame/s are considered minimally acceptable by some, though this can vary significantly from game to game. Most modern action games, including popular first person shooters such as Halo 3, run around 30 frames a second, while others, such as Unreal Tournament 3, run at 60 frames a second. The frame rate within games, particularly PC games, typically varies with the hardware configuraton, and depending upon what is currently happening in the game at a given moment. When the production of a frame makes large demands on the CPU and / or GPU, the framerate falls.

They also note that the maximum refresh rate on CRTs is around 85 fps. Also, in my experience CRT flickering is more a sign of your CRT being old and burned out than it is a sign of your computer's video card failing to output info fast enough. Frankly, I doubt how able to tell the difference between frame rates most people are over about 30fps.

[McGoonagle]

My curiosity is satisfied. Thanks both.

[Darwinion]

I believe that 30fps is the accepted norm whereby anything less and the naked eye can start to notice it. If you can get 30fps minimum in the most heated and processor intensive parts of a game then you are good to go for the rest of it. I'd be perfectly happy with that no matter what title I'm playing or on what system.

[sruon]

Idle curiosity about frame rates: What is the lowest frame rate considered acceptable for most applications, which I'm guessing is when most people start seeing flickering? Are the frame rates for acceptable to good to high end well-defined, or is it a subjective thing?

30 fps kills my eyes, for FPS I want 80-100, for random games(such as a MMO) i'd say 50-60.

[Mytiwar]

Well I don't know much about computers tbh but I'm pretty sure 60 fps for MMOs (generalizing given the only one I ever played was FFXI) is pretty much impossible.

I was running at 39 fps with a beast pc while I was still playing last summer with a brand new comp.

[Knyghtmayre]

You cannot physically notice a difference between 30 FPS and 80 FPS, if 80 is even obtainable, so 'killing your eyes' is bullshit.

[Celeras]

You cannot physically notice a difference between 30 FPS and 80 FPS, if 80 is even obtainable, so 'killing your eyes' is bullshit.

This is completely false. Just because people like to throw it around all the time as fact doesn't mean its true. There certainly is a difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS when it comes to games.

[Kirbyprime]

I believe it's more in the sense that our eyes can't capture 100% of the details at 80fps, but we can definitely see a difference between 30 and 80. It's just that once the speed is higher than what our brains can process we'll naturally start to blur certain details to keep up. Just like how when you see a ball go past you you can no longer see the stitching etc.

[sruon]

You cannot physically notice a difference between 30 FPS and 80 FPS, if 80 is even obtainable, so 'killing your eyes' is bullshit.

There is a huge difference on CRTs with FPS.

Well I don't know much about computers tbh but I'm pretty sure 60 fps for MMOs (generalizing given the only one I ever played was FFXI) is pretty much impossible.

I was running at 39 fps with a beast pc while I was still playing last summer with a brand new comp.

That is because FFXI engine was locked at 29.9 FPS, WoW runs at 100, and so does Aion.

I don't know about others though.

That is assuming the rest of your computer can handle it, because difference is that in MMOGs you are constantly loading files which causes a lot of lag (not constant framerate)

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
and lots more on the interwab.

[Mytiwar]

That is because FFXI engine was locked at 29.9 FPS

Oh eh, probly was 29 and not 39. Been a while since I checked that...


FFXI never really seemed laggy to me and there you say it can get up to a 100. Well then to answer that other guy's question, seems like the difference is there but it's probably marginal compared to the boost you get from 10 to 30 fps. (Playing ffxi on the ps2 hurts the soul)

[Reality]

You cannot physically notice a difference between 30 FPS and 80 FPS, if 80 is even obtainable, so 'killing your eyes' is bullshit.

wrongzilla

[drwaffles]

Where does this "29.9" FPS figure for FFXI come from? On both machines that I've played the game on my FPS has completely maxed out at 29.4, occasionally spiking up to .5-.6 for a fraction of a second during moments of connection-based lag (which is pretty illogical really). This is from obsessively watching the Windower FPS function, maybe other people use something different.

[Akucaen]

It's subjective. Most games run at 30-60fps. TV in the US runs at 29.97 fps, while in the UK it runs at 25fps. Some videos do run at 24fps.

Here's the relevant paragraph of the wikipedia article:


They also note that the maximum refresh rate on CRTs is around 85 fps. Also, in my experience CRT flickering is more a sign of your CRT being old and burned out than it is a sign of your computer's video card failing to output info fast enough. Frankly, I doubt how able to tell the difference between frame rates most people are over about 30fps.

Well that makes no sense. You meant 85hz? Even then it makes no sense because I have a nice, old Viewsonic P95FB CRT that did 120hz at 1024 and 100hz at 1280. (1280x1024 w/ 100hz was the recommended and "native" mode of it as well.)