Seems as if FFXI is doing good, to say the least.

[jvd]

Only soft shadows were off and I said nforce , not nforce too .

The rest of the options were turned up .


On an athlon 2.5 ghz with a 9700pro and a gig of ram I can play at 1024 x 768 x 6xfsaa and 16 aniso with soft shadows on around 30-45 fps .

 

[Fafalada]

I also have no doubt a geforce 2 with a 1.5 ghz processor can provide the same visual quality as a ps2. There are some exclusive games on ps2 that make good use of the massive amounts of polygons + minimal textures it can do, and those could not be 1:1 ported.(but you could lower the polygons and make better textures and probably make a better looking game)

Stop right there.
If you're running with this as some kind of "comparable" machine scenario, then take a 450mhz Celeron, GF2, and split 32MB of memory between the two. While you're at it, use a Sound card with 4MB or less memory as well.

Minimal texture? I'd love to see this rig do better. Comparable visual quality on NTSC display? I'd like to see that too.

Giving one machine infinite memory, triple(or more) computational power and the advantage of higher end displays isn't what I'd call comparable in any manner whatsoever.

The other thing is that console games (PS2 included) don't exactly just throw more polygons around then contemporary PCs did - if for no other reason because you can do a lot more with your pixels when there's less of them to render.

 

[Fox5]

I said 1.5ghz and geforce 2 because that's the example provided, I didn't try to say it was comparable spec or price to ps2. When ps2 came out, that actually may have been beyond a top end pc.

And ps2 games like Jak and Daxter seem to have an awful lot of polygons, with awfully simple textures.(compared to other games) I don't think Jak and Daxter could run on a 1.5 ghz pc with a geforce 2. I do think Beyond Good and Evil could run at low resolution on that PC, and it would look clearer than the ps2 version because it is on a monitor and has better output.(not sure if it would run as well, the pc version of BG&E is kind of a system hog)

But I think a system based on a geforce 2 and a 1.5ghz cpu would put up a better fight than dreamcast did, and many claim(ed) dreamcast had better visuals than ps2. Though the far more powerful cpu gives it a very large advantage; can't a 1.5 ghz p4 offer about the same kind of power as the 1 shader unit on the geforce 3, and a 1.5ghz athlon above it?(if it was fully dedicated to pixel/vertex shading and nothing else) I'm just basing this off of something I remember about a 1 ghz athlon, where it was said it could render a certain amount of polygons which I believe was about voodoo 1 power. Oh, and I think one of the ps2's vector units can shader about 10 million polygons, which I think I saw compared to the power of a 400 mhz pentium 2. Please correct me if I'm way off on all this.

 

[jvd]

Fafalada I think you are missing the point . We are trying to find the lowest pc set up that can run this game with the same visual quality as the ps2 so that we can estimate the userbase it might find on the pc .

I believe that a 1.5 ghz cpu and a geforce 2 card can produce the same quality out put of the ps2 . I've seen lesser systems play kotor and look the same if not better than the xbox version .

 

[Fox5]

Well, Final Fantasy 11 isn't really heavy on graphics, but like all MMORPGs, it is a system hog. But that would require more of the cpu and memory than the graphics card, so assuming FFXI is a good port, then yeah a pc with a 1.5ghz processor and 512MB of ram and a geforce 2 should run it at least as well as a ps2, but that's if it was ported well and that doesn't mean the ps2 version doesn't run bad. I wouldn't expect those pc specs or a ps2 to run the game at a constant 30 fps.

 

[jvd]

Well, Final Fantasy 11 isn't really heavy on graphics, but like all MMORPGs, it is a system hog. But that would require more of the cpu and memory than the graphics card, so assuming FFXI is a good port, then yeah a pc with a 1.5ghz processor and 512MB of ram and a geforce 2 should run it at least as well as a ps2, but that's if it was ported well and that doesn't mean the ps2 version doesn't run bad. I wouldn't expect those pc specs or a ps2 to run the game at a constant 30 fps.

well square made it and they produce quality engines and it has allways been planed to run on the pc too. So i don't really consider it a port because we don't know how much it was programed eclusivly for either platform. For all we know it doesn't look as good on the ps2 because they wanted it to look good and run well on the minimum spec pc and because of that reduced thier target image quality or polygon count .

 

[Fafalada]

Ok, my bad for missing the point of the original tangent (not reading straight). Anyway wasn't there the benchmark for FF11 before release, and what was the target mark for acceptable performance according to Square?

When ps2 came out, that actually may have been beyond a top end pc.

Actually there 1.5Ghz cpus didn't exist when PS2 came out, but yeah that's not really important for the debate at hand.

Anyway, for geometry operations 1.5g Athlon would likely give GF3 a run for its money yeah.

 

[Fox5]

There was a target performance rating from squaresoft for the ff11 benchmark?
Well, all I really remember is running it on a 1.4ghz athlon with a geforce 3 was kind of chopped, and slowed down immensely at times.

 

[Lazy8s]

cthellis42:

Offhand, I'm curious how you think that Lazy8s.

First of all, you'll recall that Square was having financial difficulties in the early PS2 days. They wanted to keep their corporate independence, but they had poor diversification. They looked to remedy this with a new direction, so they weilded their biggest asset to this end, the Final Fantasy franchise - the brand that had helped sway the balance of an entire console gen, had blockbuster acceptance in all of the worldwide markets, and was believed strong enough at the time to push a high-budget motion picture.

This new direction was to be online gaming and services, and it was to be a major focus with the collaboration on an online network (PlayOnline), an MMORPG as a true numbered Final Fantasy sequel, and even a planned online mode in FFX for getting tips and strategies. You might remember Square revealing FFXI and all of this (they showed promo materials for FFX, FFXI, FFXII at the same time) in the very early days of the PS2, back when DC was still fighting the good fight.

By taking the Final Fantasy brand online, they hoped to make online gaming as mainstream as possible... to take MMORPG acceptance to a new level where games like Everquest, which had little recognition broader than just its online market, wouldn't expect to reach. At the time, Square was prudently aiming to keep the game available to all PS2 online users, with and without a hard drive.

Securing Square support had been a critical goal for SEGA Japan; it was what they felt they needed to be viable and not be at the constant disadvantage. They would've been convinced to ride the hardware market out longer had Square agreed to make a big deal also about backing DC.

As Square had staved off financial crisis by moving their business from Nintendo to Sony back in the day when their FMV games called for a new medium like the CD, the online platform that DC offered for Square's online vision was a far more appropriate medium than the network-unready PS2 could've hoped to be. Square needed a big success to not have to entertain losing their corporate independence to anyone.

DC's online userbase had already achieved a size about an order of magnitude larger than PS2's when FFXI's sales leveled off at only about 300k after around a year on the market. Even Phantasy Star managed an online userbase of 400k worldwide in its first version on DC.

How does it help Square now to have PS2s ship with network adapters, when an encouraging launch - which didn't languish from HDD production and distribution woes and which didn't sit around 300k in sales for about a year - could've been important in assuring them that they could've maintained as an independent company? Though that ship has sailed now, a FFXI along the original plan of requiring only the network connection and made instead for DC would've given them a far more encouraging start in sales.

As it is, FFXI could probably sell better on Xbox than PS2 - it's not like PS2's sub 500k achievement is too hard to reach, and the Final Fantasy brand is bigger than any Xbox Live franchise they've got going on the platform (barring Halo) and would only help to really expand the Xbox and Live userbases (more potential customers). There's a physical installed base of about 13 million network cards and HDDs in the Xbox demographic.

And it's only now, with the PS2 network bundle, that the physical installed base of PS2 network hardware rivals the 8+ million net-equipped DCs sold - a fact not even as relevant as looking at the active installed bases instead (the people actually using the hardware to go online)... where DC achieved more.

Thing is, Sony had assured Square that PS2 would be at the forefront of the online revolution with their whole 'broadband era' propaganda they started evangelizing back in the pre-PS2 days. Why go against Sony, epsecially when the company was paying for exclusivity on the numbered installments of the FF franchise?

Their faith in Sony's grand online plan, the one which touted how very far they were taking online gaming beyond DC despite not having built-in network capabilities like SEGA's console, was unsurprisngly misplaced as selling 50+ million more consoles still couldn't overcome the registered results of an online plan done right.

FFXI stumbled because of technical issues with development (fast connection and hard drive becoming required), supply and distribution problems for the hard drive, and anemic uptake of the network adapter by the PS2 userbase.

The real question is: what sense did it make in the first place to plan a massive online project for a console lacking sound online aspirations (despite the machine's obvious predestination to dominate the upcoming console gen) rather than consoles where every sale provided networking equipment backed by a genuine push for spreading the concept of online gaming?

 

[rabidrabbit]

I know the PS2 version of FFXI is not available/playable in Europe.
But can the PC version be played here? I haven't seen it in shops, but if I were to import it, would I be able to join any of the servers??

 

[jvd]

I know the PS2 version of FFXI is not available/playable in Europe.
But can the PC version be played here? I haven't seen it in shops, but if I were to import it, would I be able to join any of the servers??

i don't see why not . My cousin used to be able to play ultima online from italy on usa servers with a 56 k modem haha .

You just have to log into a region where its out and deal with any lag you might have

 

[Ozymandis]

I know the PS2 version of FFXI is not available/playable in Europe.
But can the PC version be played here? I haven't seen it in shops, but if I were to import it, would I be able to join any of the servers??

Yes, you'll be able to join the servers. In fact FFXI has a large Italian population. At least, it does on our server. I've met Brits in-game as well.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Thanks jvd and Ozymandis.
Wonder why SquareEnix has not officially released the PC game in Europe. It's a PC game, so there is no need for PAL conversion. Is it because of the language localisations, don't know...

 

[Ozymandis]

I'm sure it's because of the localization. I've heard that the Japanese and English versions of the game were developed concurrently after a point.

On this subject, if I had to guess I'd say that FFXI is one of the largest if not THE largest translation efforts in a game, ever. That's just a guess. It turned out very, very well. I've never had an issue with any of the dialogue.


Also, about the controls, they're not bad but they take some getting used to. About a month ago I went out and got a Ps2-to-USB controller adapter. The game plays beautifully on that.

 

[cthellis42]

Lazy, you have some good points, but you are being utterly rediculous in regards to the Dreamcast. You are suggesting that Square wanted to create a hefty MMORPG to carry Final Fantasy online properly, but should have done so within the confines of a CD, on a system where they did not even have the possibility of a hard drive, and where they had no track record for the license, no programming experience, and were not even planning on bringing FFX nor FFXII there either? As well, your PSO comparison is effectively nulled, as there were few online options worth pursuing at the time anyway, and it was free. Since you so carefully stated "in its first version" in regards to that subscription price, do you also know how many continued with Version 2--where there actually was a price? (And only $5 a month.) How about how the I & II packs for the Xbox, where you pay on top of Live's subscription charges, or GameCube where it is also about the only online option but has a high subscription rate... that are still below FFXI's? That would at least give a better idea of how they could compare, wouldn't you say?

Regarding the Xbox, it would indeed have been good to try to get FFXI on there as well, but if they were not also planning on bringing FFX and FFXII as well, it would be foolish to START there. Square would certainly see it more beneficial to extend their relationship with Sony instead of starting from scratch again with an American developer they've had no relations with before (and seemingly no inclination to). If a company is indeed in financial trouble, would you expect them to make a major paradigm shift, or stay where they already have all their working relationships set and--hey--get incentive to keep right ON staying as well? And in hindsight, it's also best they went with the PS2 first on this: The Xbox has tiny support in their home region, so FFXI's console impact in Japan would have been much less (but drive up Xbox sales, for sure). The game would take up the VAST majority of space on the Xbox's hard drive all by itself (6+ gigs) and could potentially cause problems from that since there is no ability to expand the space (quite probably wouldn't amoun to much, but I felt it worthy of note at least). There may be 13+ million potential units, but only 700+ who are subscribing to Live and would have to be willing to pay $13+/month on top of that which is always more imposing than hardware outlay (for whatever reason. So many people don't blink an eye at spending [or wasting] more cash in one-shot clumps, but recurring charges makes them shirk.) The primary Xbox-buying public is usually the least-inclined to care about Final Fantasies or "console RPGs" in general, and FFXI is certainly a solid mixture of console RPG influences and what we expect from a MMORPG. Sales and subscriptions of FFXI are most certainly braced by sales of the rest of their series, which either they would not have gotten were FFXI on Xbox online while the rest remained on PS2, or would have had much worse sales on the Xbox's lower sales and less-inclined userbase. To boot, FFXI in general has more appeal to Eastern audiences than Western, so they get more proportionate new subscribers and would have more retention in that market.

A LOT would have had to be different for FFXI to sell well on the Xbox, and it would have caused all the other "different" to do worse, so I certainly don't see that as a boon. And in the end, I don't think it would make a helluva lot of difference even just talking about FFXI. "Potential users" is meaningless--what I was addressing before. All PC MMORPGs have a huge "potential userbase" (we've just been curious about the size), but that's not going to determine the success of these titles. A lot proportion of them are gamers, an even lower proportion favor online RPG-ing, and a very low proportion overall are willing to pay $10+ subscriptions to anything, let alone MMORPGs. The games attract people with their visability (and the popularity of their licenses), but retain them by not sucking. Sims is wildly popular, but crashed and burned as a concept online. Plenty of MMORPGs came out with a whimper--even a bang--and quickly drowned in problems and are struggling to make any headway. They're looking around for new people to attract TO the games that haven't been before, and better ways to retain them, but they're not succeeding just being available to more machines. Some of these games have probably had massive amounts of userbase-churn over the years, and what it basically points to is strength of concept (in all forms), since they've been pulling from a "potential audience" that makes 13 million seem pretty small as well.

You can be annoyed that they didn't choose to bring it to the Xbox ALSO--I certainly think it would be cool to merge three different platforms on the same online servers, it would give them more subscribers, and certainly give Live a great attraction. But to think it should have gone there in place of...? It would assuredly perform worse on the Xbox now (though it also most assuredly performs worse on PS2 than they were led to believe it would), and the steps that would have had to be taken to MAKE it perform better would have required a major paradigm shift that I don't see would have been a safe bet when they would have had to make those decisions (if Xbox was even on anybody's radar when the projects were being started), nor in hindsight a better option now. As to why they didn't pursue it for Xbox ALSO...? Well, no doubt it comes down to money. (Duh.) Since they developed it for PC also, they would be at least closer to a workable Xbox engine design, but how much extra development costs would it have required? Did they need to shift major programming efforts elsewhere and concentrate on content addition and refinement, but start the groundworks for new projects as opposed to another port? How much incentive was there for them to remain only with Sony?

The inner workings is probably as shady as always, but by concept? No. I can't see how ANY track record leads one to believe it a better idea.

-------------------------------------------------
- Meanwhile, back to PC performance! -
-------------------------------------------------

Running FFXI on a P3 900 and a GF2 (512MB RAM) is ass on toast. Running it on an AthlonXP ~1100 on a GF4MX (768MB RAM) was a bit less sluggish ass on toast, even at minimum features. Both were being run at 1024x768. I know very few PC gamers willing to go down to 800x600 anymore, and NO ONE who would remotely contemplate going lower. I can't match the proposals exactly, and would certainly get a boost from better CPU's in both cases, but it gives me an approximation of scale.

Play was sluggish--acceptable in outlands but almost unplayable in cities/crowd on the GF2, and no joy on the GF4MX. (GF3--at least the Ti500--would be a good clip above the 4MX and be a lot more acceptable, however.) This is all pretty much on the lowest quality available, which is hideously glaring on PC--and I should know. *looks at computer mournfully*

The "standards and practices" of typical gameplay between consoles and PC's are plenty different; in how we watch, in what we're willing to accept... Who knows ANY PC gamer would would remotely enjoy playing at 640x480? The option isn't even on the table. Due to the nature of the PC programming, it's also much more susceptible to slowdowns, so getting the game to an "equivalent" is a weird process. Things like aliasing and low quality textures are more obvious on a higher-res monitor close to one, whereas on a lower-quality television viewed at a distance it certainly looks better. And when comparing games, you pretty much compare them to contemporaries on their respective platforms, not to each other, so what one finds "acceptable" on one device may be very different from another. (Most especially when you're talking about different display devices. Consider the GBA, for example, or a PDA. Or, going the other way, a movie screen. TV's and monitors don't have that kind of extreme scale of course, but there's most certainly a difference.)

So what DOES roughly equate one version to the other? The answer is "it depends." Gaming is an experience, not a measuring of pixel output. If someone is bugged by low-res textures but not resolution itself, it alters specs one way. If slowdown is of PRIMARY concern, it shifts to another. If some resolutions or FPS are just beyond consideration, it creates different considerations. If someone is less caring about the quality differences between their monitor and TV, it changes the "standards" again.

Of what I've talked about with my friend concerning the PS2 version (no personal experience, having not been in Japan for a while ) it's a great-looking PS2 game, and doesn't suffer as wild a performance hit as the PC is apt to (reflection both on their programming skill and the nature of supporting a MMORPG across all the possible components they'd want). (Seen videos as well of course, but we've all done that and have our own opinions.) All I can definitively say about the PC version of FFXI is it hits me worse than does SWG or AC2 (both of which would be lucky to ever break out of the 20's FPS-wise, at almost the lowest qualities while I'm by myself and not doing anything) and that none of them make my heart sing with joy. -_- What it does for anyone else in comparison... "It depends."

 

[jvd]

Running FFXI on a P3 900 and a GF2 (512MB RAM) is ass on toast. Running it on an AthlonXP ~1100 on a GF4MX (768MB RAM) was a bit less sluggish ass on toast, even at minimum features. Both were being run at 1024x768. I know very few PC gamers willing to go down to 800x600 anymore, and NO ONE who would remotely contemplate going lower. I can't match the proposals exactly, and would certainly get a boost from better CPU's in both cases, but it gives me an approximation of scale

Its funny because I know no real pc gamers who would run a rig like that and if they do they know damn well that they have to trade things off .

But the question is at 800x600 does it play well and look better than the ps2 version .

Also the pc version is 50$ the ps2 version is 100$ with that 50 you could buy a geforce 4 ti 4200 if you look .

 

[Fox5]

JVD- You can't get a $50 ti 4200 on pricewatch.com, but you can get a geforce 3 or some version of it for under $60, and a geforce fx 5200. However, any of these cards would still have trouble playing FFXI if the benchmark is an accurate example of performancec.

Also, PSO Ep1&2 has over 600,000 active subscriptions, most of them on gamecube, how many active subscriptions does FFXI have on just PS2?

 

[jvd]

Thats not true . Around x mass I got a ti 4200 for my extra pc for 55$ at compusa .

YOu might have to look a bit harder but i'm sure you can find it .

Regardless you can get a 9200 for under 50$ and from what I saw of my 8500 pro it will run the game just fine at 800x600 .


Anyone a site with benchmarks of the game out .

 

[London Geezer]

Not to spoil the geeky ambient but... Console Forum anyone...

 

[jvd]

Not to spoil the geeky ambient but... Console Forum anyone...

We are talking about consoles. We are trying to figure out how big the size of the user base is for this tittle and how much of it could be from the pc side.

There is no problem here .