Windows Guild Wars 2 - Nine months later

[luffytubby]

One of the cool things about persistent online games is that they change and evolve over time as features gets added, as well as new content and gameplay.

Community member Wooden Potatoes goes over some of the additions and changes since the launch of the game. If you've been wondering if you should dip into GW2 or have been thinking about coming back from a hiatus, this video might be a good show; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIgeldCpV68

 

[Dirtyharry50]

What I am waiting to see is when the Mac beta finally ends they are willing to call it a formal release. I've been putting off trying the game until then.

 

[luffytubby]

What I am waiting to see is when the Mac beta finally ends they are willing to call it a formal release. I've been putting off trying the game until then.

Like most other Cider Wrappers, I don't know how much more can be expected from it. As far as performance goes, I've been told the Mac Client is at least 20% slower than the Windows side, give or take depending on who you ask.


The way I've understood it as that it's effectively emulation. I don't think going out of beta is going to remove those problems that are inherent with emulation. I assume the game runs great if you lower some of the settings though.

 

[SingularityG]

Like most other Cider Wrappers, I don't know how much more can be expected from it. As far as performance goes, I've been told the Mac Client is at least 20% slower than the Windows side, give or take depending on who you ask.


The way I've understood it as that it's effectively emulation. I don't think going out of beta is going to remove those problems that are inherent with emulation. I assume the game runs great if you lower some of the settings though.

On the 17" mid 2010 Macbook Pro, Guild Wars 2 runs great in Bootcamp with most settings on the highest. In OS X it is a whole different story. There have been noticeable improvements after a few updates, but overall the performance is still abysmal. On my system, it does not matter much what settings I use. Even on the very lowest, it's hard to reach steady 30 fps in most areas, while the very highest gives me steady 15 fps.

As Dirtyharry50, I am simply waiting, hoping this will get better after it's out of beta.

 

[Huntn]

I tried GWs2 in beta and briefly in retail. Lost interest in it rather quickly. I think it reflects more on my history and maturity with MMOs rather than on the game itself. It's a much better game than Star Wars Online. Been-there-done-that will not keep me playing although I admit some things in GWs are very different as far as how class combat functions as compared to what came before it. I just lost interest. The game did not seem all that solo friendly, again, maybe a reflection on me. The most recent RPG I've played is Skyrim and that did keep my interest through the completion of the main quest. Gonna Try ESO when it hits retail.

 

[Acorn]

most of the statements imho are false. for one thing cider is an api not emulation like parallels. second i get 60 fps everything on high with imac 27 max resolution. Ive been all sorts of places with high traffic with no issues. the only issue ive had with the mac client is sometimes it is unresponsive when accessing the trading/market. a well known bug that doesnt happen often.

I have had no issues with the mac client and i play it after work for several hours 6+ hours a day and have had no issues with playability on highest settings and max resolution and no issues with stability. its the best mac game out there right now imho. I wouldnt play the mac beta client until 4 am every night if it was slow and crappy like people said.

my machine is an 27 inch imac with 675mx graphics.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

my machine is an 27 inch imac with 675mx graphics.

Did you read the other person's post where they indicate they are running on a 2010 Macbook? I hope not because surely you wouldn't expect the GPU, etc. in their system to stand up to yours which is the highest end Mac currently available from a gaming perspective.

A working solution for a game typically needs to run well on midrange hardware to be successful otherwise, the system requirements become self-limiting for the game's sales to a particular audience, in this case Mac gamers, among whom you are in the minority with hardware that powerful.

Mine is the system that precedes yours by one model year and had the best available GPU when it was made, the Radeon 6970m. I don't think for a moment I'd get the same performance you do. Up until early this year, I had the best possible Mac for gaming.

So no, I kinda doubt GW2 just runs fantastic for all Mac users just because it happens to for you on the latest, greatest hardware. Keeping in mind the broad range of Mac systems out there and the fact that high end is the minority, it behooves game developers to try and develop with the lowest common denominator at least in mind for some sort of playable settings. Sure, not everyone with older systems, mine included at this point should expect max everything all of the time, but playable frame rates with decent visuals? Yeah. I think that is a reasonable expectation and one that I also think most game developers strive for where ultimately it is in their own best interests to provide the fun for as many users as possible.

If Windows games shipped to run well only on high end machines, most if not all of them would fail to sell well. Why should we as Mac gamers have lesser expectations for what is delivered to us and called a Mac OS X version? I don't care how it is "ported" and I use the term loosely in the case of Cider, so long as it works. It ought to work on medium settings with decent frame rates on any 2010 Macintosh in my opinion and even better on later hardware. This would more closely resemble what you might find for performance on "typical" machines in the Windows world.

Have a look at the Steam hardware survey sometime and notice what the average Windows user plays games on. They are not playing on high end rigs. The average Mac user isn't either.

As for being an API, I don't think a solution I can drop a game into at home and fire it up on my Mac qualifies as an API. No source code access required, you know? Transgaming who sells Cider as a quick and easy porting solution began life selling a modified version of Wine to Linux gamers. I think what they have now is simply the continued evolution of that Wine-based code.

 

[Acorn]

Did you read the other person's post where they indicate they are running on a 2010 Macbook? I hope not because surely you wouldn't expect the GPU, etc. in their system to stand up to yours which is the highest end Mac currently available from a gaming perspective.

A working solution for a game typically needs to run well on midrange hardware to be successful otherwise, the system requirements become self-limiting for the game's sales to a particular audience, in this case Mac gamers, among whom you are in the minority with hardware that powerful.

Mine is the system that precedes yours by one model year and had the best available GPU when it was made, the Radeon 6970m. I don't think for a moment I'd get the same performance you do. Up until early this year, I had the best possible Mac for gaming.

So no, I kinda doubt GW2 just runs fantastic for all Mac users just because it happens to for you on the latest, greatest hardware. Keeping in mind the broad range of Mac systems out there and the fact that high end is the minority, it behooves game developers to try and develop with the lowest common denominator at least in mind for some sort of playable settings. Sure, not everyone with older systems, mine included at this point should expect max everything all of the time, but playable frame rates with decent visuals? Yeah. I think that is a reasonable expectation and one that I also think most game developers strive for where ultimately it is in their own best interests to provide the fun for as many users as possible.

If Windows games shipped to run well only on high end machines, most if not all of them would fail to sell well. Why should we as Mac gamers have lesser expectations for what is delivered to us and called a Mac OS X version? I don't care how it is "ported" and I use the term loosely in the case of Cider, so long as it works. It ought to work on medium settings with decent frame rates on any 2010 Macintosh in my opinion and even better on later hardware. This would more closely resemble what you might find for performance on "typical" machines in the Windows world.

Have a look at the Steam hardware survey sometime and notice what the average Windows user plays games on. They are not playing on high end rigs. The average Mac user isn't either.

As for being an API, I don't think a solution I can drop a game into at home and fire it up on my Mac qualifies as an API. No source code access required, you know? Transgaming who sells Cider as a quick and easy porting solution began life selling a modified version of Wine to Linux gamers. I think what they have now is simply the continued evolution of that Wine-based code.

just because I run a 675mx which is not the top end 680mx is doesnt mean i expect everyone else too. the minimum specs on low quality is an HD 3000 or a 320m for the mac beta client. Take some time and browse you tube and you will see tons of people doing gameplay videos of hd3000 and hd4000 on beta client with no lag issues (pve). it is perfectly playable with those low end cards.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

just because I run a 675mx which is not the top end 680mx is doesnt mean i expect everyone else too. the minimum specs on low quality is an HD 3000 or a 320m for the mac beta client. Take some time and browse you tube and you will see tons of people doing gameplay videos of hd3000 and hd4000 on beta client with no lag issues (pve). it is perfectly playable with those low end cards.

My apologies. I didn't pay close enough attention to your post and catch the card model correctly.

Just the same, I think some of my points stand pretty well since i have a very hard time believing someone with an HD3000 is getting anywhere close to the visual and frame rate performance you are. I guess to each their own but "low quality" doesn't cut it for me. I wonder who would buy a game knowing it will only provide low quality visuals from the outset? That doesn't sound like a very good experience really but maybe it is good enough. I haven't seen it.

Maybe the points are overstated about the game's overall performance with Cider being poor. I cannot say I know first hand since I have not tried it. I do consider it cause for concern however when I read user complaints about it. People don't generally complain just for the joy of doing so although there is exceptions to every rule.

Ultimately though, until they are willing to stand behind it as a full retail release for Mac, I am not interested in trying it as I said before. I am not paying fifty dollars for the privilege of beta testing their product. Obviously they feel the current version isn't ready for primetime or they'd call it 1.0. I don't like beta testing games personally but that is just me. It is great others do enjoy it where it helps to make for a better finished product for the holdouts such as myself.

 

[SingularityG]

This is to show I am not talking out of my a$$. You can see selected settings as well as FPS counter, which is in the bottom right corner of the option screen.

Pictures were taken in the starting area with very few characters in view. This is fully updated Mac beta.

Mixed Settings

Best Performance Setting (lowest possible)

Best Appearance Setting (almost highest possible)

It is hardly "perfectly playable" as you can see.

 

[Acorn]

unfortunately from what ive read on the official mac beta forum they are not really supporting it. You almost never get a forum reply and even the mods suggest you open a ticket rather then post since they dont seem to be going there anymore.

Although I stand by my comment that it is not emulated its still some form of wrapper. basically its not like they can go in and modify mac code to make a fix. There really isnt much they can do programming wise when your using a ready made solution like they choose to use. aside from hope the company that creates the wrapper is able to make fixes. I dont expect much from that avenue to be honest.

Perhaps they need to increase their lowest requirements because while it is playable at 18-20 fps on low end cards its not a great experience. high end cards seem to plow through performance issues and go over 60 fps. But as most posted high end cards are not the norm.