FFXIV Minimum Requirment Rage

Alereth

Alereth

Knight of the Iron Ham
Adventurer
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Bastok, Vana'Diel
Nation Banner
Bastok
Main Job
Paladin-Male
Secondary Job
Summoner-Male
Third Job
RedMage-Male
Server
Cerberus
Linkshell
Honorbound
FFXI
Alerith
FFXIV
Alerith Rayneheart
First off, I understand it's a beta. Things glitch, clients crash, stuff happens. On that note, I need to say this:

You have no right commenting on how the game is shit because of lag WHEN YOUR SYSTEM DOESN'T OR BARELY MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIRMENTS FOR THE GAME.

It's an understood fact there is lag on the interface, mouse and in battle at times.

But if you are gonna complain that your character isn't able to react fast enough because of "lag", or you get pissed off because "lag" is slowing you down during weather effects, or you couldn't heal because of "lag", and it's all because of your shitty system, then shut the hell up.

We have plenty of people here reviewing the game on decent systems who DON'T have the same problems as you. You know why? THEY HAVE DECENT SYSTEMS.

I'm not saying you need top of the line to run this, but for fuck's sake, don't bitch about how the game is wronging you when it's your own hardware bringing you down.

Thank you for your time.
 
Most of the people I know that are planning to play this are greeted by me with a kind:

!!WARNING!! This game is extremely heavy!!
Make sure you have a decent PC to run it or wait for the PS3 release.

Them - "But I have a 2Ghz Dual core with 2 gigs of ram..."
Me - "Not good enough!"
Them - "Damn"
(I upgraded my own machine to run this game a little better, damn you SE!.)
 
in all fairness you guys thing game developers are starting to go a little overboard with their designs lately?
 
For the most part, not really. There are some games that go overboard on their highest settings though, that I will admit.
 
Shirai said:
Most of the people I know that are planning to play this are greeted by me with a kind:

!!WARNING!! This game is extremely heavy!!
Make sure you have a decent PC to run it or wait for the PS3 release.

Them - "But I have a 2Ghz Dual core with 2 gigs of ram..."
Me - "Not good enough!"
Them - "Damn"
(I upgraded my own machine to run this game a little better, damn you SE!.)
Click to expand...

Haha that's pretty funny. my old computer wouldn't have been good enough to run this. Luckily I got a new machine this Spring.

Core i7 3.33GHz
9GB RAM
All sexiness

Zaltana said:
in all fairness you guys thing game developers are starting to go a little overboard with their designs lately?
Click to expand...

Not at all. The prettier it looks, the more I like it ... in many cases. I'm still a hardcore fan of the really old 16 and 32 bit games :D
 
ShomeGhuye said:
Haha that's pretty funny. my old computer wouldn't have been good enough to run this. Luckily I got a new machine this Spring.

Core i7 3.33GHz
9GB RAM
All sexiness



Not at all. The prettier it looks, the more I like it ... in many cases. I'm still a hardcore fan of the really old 16 and 32 bit games :D
Click to expand...

... 9 gigabytes of ram...? Really..?
 
I can kinda understand the frustration though. I can thankfully run the game on low-mid settings just fine with no lag on my end. I would of liked to run it on high settings but life's a bitch and I'll get over it. The reason I can see people getting pissed off is because they have been talking about casual gaming and how it's totally fine for the casual person etc. Most people who only game casually can barely run this game, if at all. Maybe if they said "for the casual gamer guys, but if you are casual have around $500-700 to spend building a new pc to run it at mid-high graphics please" I would be more on their side with this one.

I really wanted to recommend this game to a few friends but I didn't even bother as I knew none of them would have a chance in hell at playing it. And they wouldn't upgrade just because I told them so. It's a bit of a shame. It won't stop me from playing anyway as I like what I see so far. Roll on Wednesday.

Although, it's a double sided sword. You down grade the graphics and it looks outdated even faster. Which is what I can see they were really trying against.
 
Dancingweapon said:
I can kinda understand the frustration though. I can thankfully run the game on low-mid settings just fine with no lag on my end. I would of liked to run it on high settings but life's a bitch and I'll get over it. The reason I can see people getting pissed off is because they have been talking about casual gaming and how it's totally fine for the casual person etc. Most people who only game casually can barely run this game, if at all. Maybe if they said "for the casual gamer guys, but if you are casual have around $500-700 to spend building a new pc to run it at mid-high graphics please" I would be more on their side with this one.

I really wanted to recommend this game to a few friends but I didn't even bother as I knew none of them would have a chance in hell at playing it. And they wouldn't upgrade just because I told them so. It's a bit of a shame. It won't stop me from playing anyway as I like what I see so far. Roll on Wednesday.

Although, it's a double sided sword. You down grade the graphics and it looks outdated even faster. Which is what I can see they were really trying against.
Click to expand...

When I see screens of XI I still have a hard-time saying it's outdated. It's still a good looking game. I'd say WoW should worry about looking outdated before FFXI.

If they have PS3s name drop the game for PS3 release in March.
 
Most of my friends are xbox tards and the ones that do own ps3 are CoD tards anyway.

I used the word tard twice in one sentence, times be bad.
 
Oh good, I can't feel left out as my system is no where near where it would need to be and it's not a priority. Ahh I feel better now.
 
well i say that because i can't remember another game off the top of my head where one of the biggest discussions about it was whether or not a computer could run the game. that combined with talk of building a computer for the sole purpose of being able to run this game too. the game is fantastic looking and i'm not complaining. i just believe that developers are maybe getting a bit ahead of themselves.
 
Zaltana said:
well i say that because i can't remember another game off the top of my head where one of the biggest discussions about it was whether or not a computer could run the game. that combined with talk of building a computer for the sole purpose of being able to run this game too. the game is fantastic looking and i'm not complaining. i just believe that developers are maybe getting a bit ahead of themselves.
Click to expand...

I would agree only if it required the absolute best to play. The game is still playable and smooth on lower settings. But some people just don't understand that some games won't work on your Windows 98 Acer anymore.
 
Cait Sith said:
It probably won't be in a year. rofl
Click to expand...

Microsoft isn't even really utilizing 4 gigs at this point on 7. They'd have to put out a new version of windows that's like holographic projections to use 9 gigs of ram.
 
Romper said:
Microsoft isn't even really utilizing 4 gigs at this point on 7. They'd have to put out a new version of windows that's like holographic projections to use 9 gigs of ram.
Click to expand...

Didn't you hear? Final Fantasy XVII Online is going to be so advanced, what you described are the minimum requirement!
 
Zaltana said:
well i say that because i can't remember another game off the top of my head where one of the biggest discussions about it was whether or not a computer could run the game. that combined with talk of building a computer for the sole purpose of being able to run this game too. the game is fantastic looking and i'm not complaining. i just believe that developers are maybe getting a bit ahead of themselves.
Click to expand...

Crysis


Romper said:
RAM is cheap Shome, but that's like over-kill x5.
Click to expand...

I've lost count of how many times that conception has been proven wrong. First one that comes to mind though is when I was building my first computer with my dad, he was trying to decide on what kind of processor to get. He decided 250 MHz was more than we'd ever need ...

Anyway, I'm just trying to stay ahead of the curve. If I wanted to go with overkill I'd have gone with the 32 GB option ^^;
 
I haven't seen a single comp using more than 1.5gb ram on idle with windows 7. I've been running with 12gbs of ram for more than a year too lol. Except I got Visual Studio, Netbeans, 2-3 vm running on this box around the clock pretty much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top