Will Wright's long-awaited game, Spore, seems to be nearing completion, with a release slated for September. In anticipation of this release, EA has outlined the system requirements and will still be releasing their Creature Creator demo for experimentation on June 17th.
Actually Vista is a result of early Spore beta testing... they put Windows ME in to the game and ran it in simulation mode for 7 years... Vista is what came out, though apparently there were several variations (Home, Professional, Business, Ultimate)
Does Knowing this before everyone else make me cool?
Anywho, they don't look as bad as I was thinking, and the fact that it supports onboard video with a dual-core CPU raises interesting questions about the engine.
Anywho, they don't look as bad as I was thinking, and the fact that it supports onboard video with a dual-core CPU raises interesting questions about the engine.
It just means that the graphic engine goes from very low graphics to possibly high graphics.
The original Intel Mac Mini is the only single core Intel Mac. Since it did not have sufficient graphics to run this game, there are no single core Macs capable of running spore.
Ever since he mentioned that you don't need to start at the beginning in order to get to a certain stage, i've just felt like it will be a bunch of mini-games, without present decisions being made in the current stage affecting your options in future stages of, what i assume, is the evolution of your creature(s). I have a feeling that the expansion pack he's been working on [penny-arcade.com] will be a ton better.
Ever since he mentioned that you don't need to start at the beginning in order to get to a certain stage, i've just felt like it will be a bunch of mini-games, without present decisions being made in the current stage affecting your options in future stages of, what i assume, is the evolution of your creature(s).
Not necessarily. It can just mean you have a bunch of predefined choices at each step. It doesn't mean you can't do better.
I mean, look at, say, Paradox's games. Different genre, I know, but they do illustrate the point nevertheless.
You can start Hearts Of Iron in 1941 and get directly to attacking the USSR, or being attacked if you play the USSR. In which case you'll start from the historical situation in 1941. But you can also start in 1936, build up your economy, and build up teh uber-Wehrmacht or Red Army, and deliver some serious smack down when 1941 comes. Or play a USA which didn't wait around for Pearl Harbour to start thinking about war, and is in much better shape to deliver a devastating punch when that happens. Play a France which picked different doctrines and built up its army, and can hold its own at the Maginot Line. Etc.
Essentially having the option to skip to 1941, doesn't make the 1936 option meaningless. You can and _do_ affect your options in the future by starting earlier.
Ditto in any other of their games. You can skip to the 1600's in EU2 and get to colonizing America, or even directly at the Napoleonic wars, or start in 1419 as an England bogged down in the 100 year war and work your way from there.
Heck, IIRC you can even export your world from one game to the next, and play it as one uber-campaign spanning 1000 years. You can start in Crusader Kings, export to EU2 when you reach the 1400's, export to Victoria in early 1800's, and (if you have the expansion pack) export to Hearts Of Iron when you reach the 1930's. The option to start directly with Hearts Of Iron doesn't make the previous stages meaningless minigames. Starting at CK can _massively_ affect your options later. You can end up in EU2 with a Byzantine Empire that regained the former lands of the Roman Empire and has the Mediterranean as Mare Nostrum (our sea), instead of being a one-province victim of the Turks. Colonize, get to Victoria with it, and you can try to out-industrialize the English. Make Byzantium _the_ industrial and cultural capital of the world, like in the old days, and the empire over whose flag the sun never sets. Etc.
You can still ask, "why?" because it gets so ahistorical that it's not even funny. Still, the principle remains. And as Spore isn't a historical game, even that objection vanishes.
pixel shader 2.0 == directX 9 == 128MB video cards from 2003
I suppose this is due to the long development. Hopefully the creative gameplay will overcome the lack of shiny and high res texture graphics.:)
Yeah, after I posted that I realized I was being a bit dismissive. I guess the rate of advance has actually slowed a bit and 5 year old cards are not so terribly different from more recent cards. I upgraded from a 6 year old 128MB nvidia ti4200 just last year myself to play Oblivion at high settings and mods that increase texture resolutions.:)
I guess the rate of advance has actually slowed a bit and 5 year old cards are not so terribly different from more recent cards This is where I post This post [slashdot.org] and get modded +5 interesting yet again. People keep forgetting relatively new games like Team Fortress 2 will run on five year old hardware (With the settings turned down a bit) running on Windows ME. A $600 "gaming rig" will play any game out there at 1280x1024 at 30fps with all the settings set to high. Why so cheap? Because not a whole lot
HL2 textures had low poly count and were generally easy to render. The game looked good because the texture artwork looked good. It's the ultimate efficiency hack.
I think you meant the models have low polygon counts. Textures are what go on the models. And yes, the textures made the difference. While the polygon counts were up there, they weren't as bad Doom 3 (released around the same time, I believe) and the textures made it all look just that much better.
Ya ya, and they reversed the polarity of the neutron flux, too. My point was, even for it's time HL2 was quite easy to run at high settings, unlike the content-free flop that was Doom3. You can't judge a game by how hard it is to run.
I'm perfectly fine with developers doing the homework and trying to make good looking game by all possible means, not just relying mostly on bling of latest GPUs... (@importance of textures: http://forums.galciv2.com/310173 [galciv2.com] section "The Updated Graphics", also: http://forums.galciv2.com/167995 [galciv2.com] I couldn't find the post in which they describe how they did it, so: each race has one, detailed, "ships texture", parts of which are used by all ships of given race; apparently it also means only one copy has to kept in
I built a machine 6 months ago for about $400 that should work acceptably, according to these specs -- a $100 asus mobo, $100 for an old geforce 7600, $50 for the cheapest AMD dual-core proc, and $50 for 2 gig of ram.
Glad to see they took the time to make sure Spore will run on low end PCs.
I built mine around August for about $1300. A GeForce 8800 GTX, an Intel Core 2 Quad, and 2 gigs of dual channel DDR2 1066 RAM ranked among the fancier pieces. I had assumed Spore would require a beefy CPU to run, as I also foresaw a general move in gaming towards focus on multicore machines. Oyi, did I ever guess wrong!
I mean sure, Oblivion flies, I'm all set for future Source-based games, and Crysis runs like a dream but at what cost? AT WHAT COST!?! Oh right, $1300. At any rate, it certainly seems I wa
By taking so long to develop the game that piece took care of itself. It's like if you wanted to run Duke Nukem Forever, back when they announced it, it would only run on what was basically a supercomputer. Not the case anymore.
Not mentioned in the article or summary is the much more interesting news that the Sporepedia [spore.com] is live. Go check out some of the creatures that the Maxis team has created. Some of them are quite different from those I've seen in previous media.
How do you see one of these Creatures in your Spore Creature Creator? Right Click on the thumbnail image of the creature. Save the image to your desktop. Drag the saved image from your desktop into the Spore Creature Creator. Voila! The Creature is in your game.
Whoever thought that up deserves a few moments of quiet respect.
After hearing about the copy-protection scheme announced earlier last month- I'm not interested in buying. No way am I connecting every other week to prove I purchased this game.
They apparently caved to the public outcry (EA listening to its customers? No wai!!) and have scaled back their copy-protection scheme. Now it will require verification when you first install the game as well as anytime you use it to retrieve online content (creatures, patches, etc.).
Assuming it's the same securom restriction as mass effect (and previously bioshock) - which it's been said it will be - you'll get 3 install activation 'credits', which must be done online. Uninstalling/reinstalling on the same computer and the same copy of windows will re-use the activation already made, as of course will having your activation checked when you retrieve more creatures.
Reinstalling windows on your pc, or upgrading hardware will then cost you another of your three activations.
Once you've hit the limit, you'll need to phone EA tech support - a premium rate phone call in my country - and request permission to install your game, most likely then having to provide proof of purchase. Permission is granted on a case-by-case basis, and not guaranteed.
They caved only insomuch as providing a more restrictive limitation than bioshock, rather than a more restrictive limit than bioshock plus constant 10 day online activation.
It's not a purchase. It's a rental. I for one have cancelled my pre-order.
I believe EA has backed off slightly after the outcry over that scheme. I believe now they check upon initial installation and whenever new content is downloaded.
Which is still pretty obscene, since downloading new content is one of the main features of the game. Your point still stands, I agree with it, and won't be buying this for the pc.
These registration schemes, along with constantly increasing requirements, are killing pc gaming.
While I would normally agree with you on the copyright schemes and such, but with it being available to so many systems at launch...what's the big deal about popping your CD in the tray?
Seriously, if you are going to buy it for console, that's what you have to do to play it anyway. How is this any worse on a PC?
Don't get me wrong, I can be as lazy as any other PC gamer and I hate having to pop in a CD just to have it run it's verification check, but if I had this game on a PS3 or X-box, I still have
what's the big deal about popping your CD in the tray?
My laptop doesn't have an optical drive, you insensitive clod!
And no, I'm not joking: I install software by pulling the optical drive out of my girlfriend's desktop and hooking an IDE->USB converter to it, but there's no way in Hell I'm going to do that on a regular basis!
"A is killing pc gaming" "B is killing pc gaming" "C is killing pc gaming" Meanwhile pc gamers play. I have been playing for a while, and i have 2 comments on this:
- All interesting and innovative stuff is coming out on PC. While this is the reality, every other platform is more likely to die than the PC. I am talking dwarffortress-class innovation, NOT better graphics. - The massive population of console users is mostly unexperienced gamers that will in time get bored of the limitations of consoles in both inp
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday June 11 2008, @09:53PM (#23758579)
If you try to pre-order, you're taken to a helpful, filled-out order form that includes the Spore Creature Editor for $9.99 and an item EA calls "Extended Download Service" for $5.99. WTF? A helpful link next to the item explains:
"EDS means that with the purchase of your digital product, we'll keep a copy of your file for two full years, so you don't have to. You'll gain peace of mind knowing that we have your program stored and ready for you to download again at your convenience."
So what it sounds like is, if you upgrade your PC, the only way you can lay your paws on your software that you purchased from EA is if you also pay "protection" money to them. And then only for two years. Swell, huh?
You do realize you can keep a backup of the file yourself, right? EA are under no obligation to waste bandwidth allowing you to download the file time and again for free.
Why not? STEAM does it and people love them for it! That of course doesn't mean they *have to*, but one would think if they want to stay competitive in that sector of the business, it would be a good idea.
Hmm...I wonder what kind of specs you'll need to run the game decently through WINE? Hell, really I just hope it runs at all. Hopefully the release of the creature creator next week will help give the WINE devs plenty of time to make sure the full game will play when it's released;)
Also...since there's an official Mac port, that does mean the game should have an optional OpenGL render right?
Will Wright has explicitly stated that they tried for lower system specs so people won't need to upgrade their machine. And now people say they're lying when they announce low system requirements.
They said Visa users needs significantly more RAM than XP users. In other words, they recognized the very point of your criticism and adjusted for it.
Everybody here already knows Vista sucks. We don't need to hear it again at any flimsy opportunity.
Don't Try To Make Humans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Kind of like Vista in that respect.
Re:Don't Try To Make Humans... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
I did not know this was news. (Score:2)
Does Knowing this before everyone else make me cool?
Anywho, they don't look as bad as I was thinking, and the fact that it supports onboard video with a dual-core CPU raises interesting questions about the engine.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I did not know this was news. (Score:5, Funny)
Does knowing this before everyone else make me cool?
This is Slashdot. We're geeks. That's how we define cool.
Parent
meh (Score:4, Funny)
Not necessarily (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily. It can just mean you have a bunch of predefined choices at each step. It doesn't mean you can't do better.
I mean, look at, say, Paradox's games. Different genre, I know, but they do illustrate the point nevertheless.
You can start Hearts Of Iron in 1941 and get directly to attacking the USSR, or being attacked if you play the USSR. In which case you'll start from the historical situation in 1941. But you can also start in 1936, build up your economy, and build up teh uber-Wehrmacht or Red Army, and deliver some serious smack down when 1941 comes. Or play a USA which didn't wait around for Pearl Harbour to start thinking about war, and is in much better shape to deliver a devastating punch when that happens. Play a France which picked different doctrines and built up its army, and can hold its own at the Maginot Line. Etc.
Essentially having the option to skip to 1941, doesn't make the 1936 option meaningless. You can and _do_ affect your options in the future by starting earlier.
Ditto in any other of their games. You can skip to the 1600's in EU2 and get to colonizing America, or even directly at the Napoleonic wars, or start in 1419 as an England bogged down in the 100 year war and work your way from there.
Heck, IIRC you can even export your world from one game to the next, and play it as one uber-campaign spanning 1000 years. You can start in Crusader Kings, export to EU2 when you reach the 1400's, export to Victoria in early 1800's, and (if you have the expansion pack) export to Hearts Of Iron when you reach the 1930's. The option to start directly with Hearts Of Iron doesn't make the previous stages meaningless minigames. Starting at CK can _massively_ affect your options later. You can end up in EU2 with a Byzantine Empire that regained the former lands of the Roman Empire and has the Mediterranean as Mare Nostrum (our sea), instead of being a one-province victim of the Turks. Colonize, get to Victoria with it, and you can try to out-industrialize the English. Make Byzantium _the_ industrial and cultural capital of the world, like in the old days, and the empire over whose flag the sun never sets. Etc.
You can still ask, "why?" because it gets so ahistorical that it's not even funny. Still, the principle remains. And as Spore isn't a historical game, even that objection vanishes.
Parent
Quite low (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose this is due to the long development. Hopefully the creative gameplay will overcome the lack of shiny and high res texture graphics.
Re:Quite low (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is where I post This post [slashdot.org] and get modded +5 interesting yet again. People keep forgetting relatively new games like Team Fortress 2 will run on five year old hardware (With the settings turned down a bit) running on Windows ME. A $600 "gaming rig" will play any game out there at 1280x1024 at 30fps with all the settings set to high. Why so cheap? Because not a whole lot
Re:Quite low (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quite low (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(@importance of textures: http://forums.galciv2.com/310173 [galciv2.com]
section "The Updated Graphics", also:
http://forums.galciv2.com/167995 [galciv2.com]
I couldn't find the post in which they describe how they did it, so: each race has one, detailed, "ships texture", parts of which are used by all ships of given race; apparently it also means only one copy has to kept in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Spore doesn't seem likely to need uber framerates...
Modest specs -- pretty much what you'd expect (Score:5, Informative)
Glad to see they took the time to make sure Spore will run on low end PCs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean sure, Oblivion flies, I'm all set for future Source-based games, and Crysis runs like a dream but at what cost? AT WHAT COST!?! Oh right, $1300. At any rate, it certainly seems I wa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some actual Spore news... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Some actual Spore news... (Score:5, Interesting)
So I go check it out, and I see this:
Whoever thought that up deserves a few moments of quiet respect.
Parent
Re:Some actual Spore news... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After hearing about.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:After hearing about.. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:After hearing about.. (Score:5, Informative)
Reinstalling windows on your pc, or upgrading hardware will then cost you another of your three activations.
Once you've hit the limit, you'll need to phone EA tech support - a premium rate phone call in my country - and request permission to install your game, most likely then having to provide proof of purchase. Permission is granted on a case-by-case basis, and not guaranteed.
They caved only insomuch as providing a more restrictive limitation than bioshock, rather than a more restrictive limit than bioshock plus constant 10 day online activation.
It's not a purchase. It's a rental. I for one have cancelled my pre-order.
Parent
Re:After hearing about.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is still pretty obscene, since downloading new content is one of the main features of the game. Your point still stands, I agree with it, and won't be buying this for the pc.
These registration schemes, along with constantly increasing requirements, are killing pc gaming.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, if you are going to buy it for console, that's what you have to do to play it anyway. How is this any worse on a PC?
Don't get me wrong, I can be as lazy as any other PC gamer and I hate having to pop in a CD just to have it run it's verification check, but if I had this game on a PS3 or X-box, I still have
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My laptop doesn't have an optical drive, you insensitive clod!
And no, I'm not joking: I install software by pulling the optical drive out of my girlfriend's desktop and hooking an IDE->USB converter to it, but there's no way in Hell I'm going to do that on a regular basis!
Re: (Score:2)
"B is killing pc gaming"
"C is killing pc gaming"
Meanwhile pc gamers play. I have been playing for a while, and i have 2 comments on this:
- All interesting and innovative stuff is coming out on PC. While this is the reality, every other platform is more likely to die than the PC. I am talking dwarffortress-class innovation, NOT better graphics.
- The massive population of console users is mostly unexperienced gamers that will in time get bored of the limitations of consoles in both inp
Looks like I won't be able to install Spore (Score:5, Funny)
How bout that "Extended Download Service"? (Score:5, Informative)
So what it sounds like is, if you upgrade your PC, the only way you can lay your paws on your software that you purchased from EA is if you also pay "protection" money to them. And then only for two years. Swell, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
WINE/*nix Requirements? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also...since there's an official Mac port, that does mean the game should have an optional OpenGL render right?
Re:Shader model 2. (Score:5, Funny)
Why, yes, I do cry into my pillow every night...
Parent
Re:Shader model 2. (Score:5, Funny)
That's better than bitting into your pillow every night, I guess.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They said Visa users needs significantly more RAM than XP users. In other words, they recognized the very point of your criticism and adjusted for it.
Everybody here already knows Vista sucks. We don't need to hear it again at any flimsy opportunity.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:start flaming (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Spore was originally slated to be released in late 2006.
Re: (Score:2)
2007 called. They're asking that you get with the times. 2006 was shouting at you in the background.