Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

dark3lf · Oct 26, 2001, 02:34 PM

Is a bad thing to try. It will crash constantly, and there is very poor 3d acceleration. Actually, the first time I tried to play it, the OS X panicked on me. I haven't tried on OS 9 yet however.

TiG4 · Oct 26, 2001, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by dark3lf:
Is a bad thing to try. It will crash constantly, and there is very poor 3d acceleration. Actually, the first time I tried to play it, the OS X panicked on me. I haven't tried on OS 9 yet however.

Hi dark3lf,

That's bad news.
I hope it isn't as bad as Diablo 2.

Anyways, where did you order your copy of BG2 from?
I pre-ordered mine from Macplay and have not heard much since the pre-order

dark3lf · Oct 26, 2001, 07:48 PM

I got mine from Compuexpert. This is one of the only places I know of that are shipping immediatley. If you try to play BG 2 in it's minimal settings, things seem to run relatively smoothly.

juanvaldes · Oct 26, 2001, 10:13 PM

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was SO looking forward to this game

What kind of system was this on?

a2daj · Oct 27, 2001, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by juanvaldes:
NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was SO looking forward to this game

What kind of system was this on?

Check out http://www.macbaldur.net/forum for some more info about the game. The guy who did the port, Chris Jacobson, reads the board fairly regularly.

dark3lf · Oct 27, 2001, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by juanvaldes:
NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was SO looking forward to this game

What kind of system was this on?

I have to desktop Macs, a G4/400 and a G4/533 DP, the gameplay on both machines are identicle at all settings. The G4/400 is enough to handle everything, OS 9 plays just fine, so it's the poor 3d acceleration that is the problem.

Oct 27, 2001, 11:38 AM

I've been playing BG 2 on a 733MZ G4 for a few days now, I it works very well on OS X. Sure, it crashes every once in a while, but but between quicksave and autosave, that't now that big of a problem. I especially had a problem with it crashing during character generation, but during actual game play, it's crashed twice in about 10 hours. It DOES NOT work well with graphic cards (I have a NVIDA 2). You have to turn off that option for it to have playable responsiveness. But so far it's a great game, with much better playability than the first was (transitions, saves, loads are much faster). It's a really great game- I like it much better that the original. Also important: their web site lists unsupported options for doing full install. I did a full install from the BG2 OSX installer on EACH CD. The 1st CD has only one option for installation, but for CD's 2-4, you do a SEPARATE install (making these FULL installs).

The Ancient One · Oct 28, 2001, 06:03 AM

I've seen posts on several boards that BG 2 runs much better in 9 than 10.1. What about the difference between native 9 and Classic?

Chimpmaster · Oct 28, 2001, 06:28 PM

Think of classic as an emulation. OSX is the native os and it is simulating or emulating os9, much like the concept of virtual pc vs the real thing.

This has obvious effects on performance.

On a very fast machine, like a g4 with a good video card, this difference is notvery noticeable at all (need lots of ram too), but on a slower machine such as an ibook or imac, it is noticeable for games especially.

Most productivity apps such as office, dreamweaver and photoshop are fine in classic, but os9 games such as diablo II choke big time on my ibook.

All you need to do is reboot into os9 using the startup disk control panel or holding down option key and run your games natively in there; they will run just as well as before osx was installed.

Its a pain in the ass, but soon enough everything will be osx native and classic will jsut be a memory.

-Q- · Oct 30, 2001, 12:24 PM

I was so looking forward to running BG2 in X. And I've come to find out like many others that performance is not quite ready for prime time. It's very jumpy, with odd graphic artifacts showing up on the screen and trying to use the cursor is just impossible. It'll be glacially slow one second and then jump into hyperspeed the next second.

How I've come to detest Classic. Sigh.

Sorry, no solutions. Just felt the need to vent...

Christina · Nov 2, 2001, 02:17 PM

BG2 does run just fine on my G4/867 w/GF3 and 768 ram in it... This is on X.1. Granted it shouldn't need this setup to do so, but I've no issues

Christina

-Q- · Nov 2, 2001, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Christina:
BG2 does run just fine on my G4/867 w/GF3 and 768 ram in it... This is on X.1. Granted it shouldn't need this setup to do so, but I've no issues

Christina

schwa · Nov 5, 2001, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Christina:
BG2 does run just fine on my G4/867 w/GF3 and 768 ram in it... This is on X.1. Granted it shouldn't need this setup to do so, but I've no issues

Christina

Granted, have you tried it on OS 9? You'd be suprised, and may rethink that "just fine" opinion. I thought BG2 was "fine" under X.1 on my DP G4/500 until I saw a friend run it on his Athlon, which was *much* faster. Then I ran BG2 under OS 9.2, and said "ahhh, *that's* how it should run!"

ShortcutToMoncton · Nov 6, 2001, 07:23 PM

Wait a sec. BG2 is NOT carbonized? Is it going to be??!?!?! After all, it's been released within the last month - and any game developer who releases a new game without the ability to run native in OS X should be shot....

greg

a2daj · Nov 6, 2001, 11:05 PM

It's carbonized.

-Q- · Nov 7, 2001, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by a2daj:
It's carbonized.

Which means they can officially say it runs, it just doesn't run very well.

ShortcutToMoncton · Nov 7, 2001, 09:23 AM

Well, that's a relief. From what I was getting there with comparisons to DiabloII it looked like people were running it in Classic. Wowzers.

Yeah, well that sucks that it's so slow. My iMac DV 400 would never take it, then. Sigh. Can't wait for the dual and the Cinema, huh?

greg

The Ancient One · Nov 7, 2001, 01:03 PM

After everything I read before installing, I planned to run BG2 on OS9. Since the install put in both versions, I thought I'd give it a try in 10.1 first. Much to my surprise, it's been running perfectly and I never have bothered to try it in 9. Dual 800/GeForce3/640MB

TiG4 · Nov 9, 2001, 10:56 PM

Finally got myself a copy of BG2.
Runs quite smoothly with 800x600 resolution in OS X , even on my G4-400 256MB RAM Powerbook

juanvaldes · Nov 11, 2001, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by TiG4:
Finally got myself a copy of BG2.
Runs quite smoothly with 800x600 resolution in OS X , even on my G4-400 256MB RAM Powerbook

Could you run it in 9 and then give us a second opinion. I just got the game and it runs like crap on my DP 450 with Rage 128 w/GigRAM.

About to boot into 9, to see how much better it is there....

TiG4 · Nov 11, 2001, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by juanvaldes:


Could you run it in 9 and then give us a second opinion. I just got the game and it runs like crap on my DP 450 with Rage 128 w/GigRAM.

About to boot into 9, to see how much better it is there....

I did not notice any significant performance improvement on OS9.

All in all, I think it is an issue of relativity.
The problem is I have never seen how the game "should" run on desktops.
Games are pretty slow on my powerbook (just like Diablo2).
Therefore, whatever that is fast to me may be slow to many others.

BTW, what a fantastic game!

juanvaldes · Nov 11, 2001, 11:59 PM

I find that hard to believe but 'to each his own'

But for me, the least demanding settings in X, is still one HELLA lot slower then highest settings in 9. So far it has not crashed once in 9, one quit on launch in X but it seems to be fairly stable.

TiG4 · Nov 13, 2001, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by juanvaldes:
I find that hard to believe but 'to each his own'

But for me, the least demanding settings in X, is still one HELLA lot slower then highest settings in 9. So far it has not crashed once in 9, one quit on launch in X but it seems to be fairly stable.

I would like to do a benchmark test, if anyone is interested.
Although I do not have a desktop system with me, I'll publish my results here for comparison.
Any suggestions?

juanvaldes · Nov 14, 2001, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by TiG4:


I would like to do a benchmark test, if anyone is interested.
Although I do not have a desktop system with me, I'll publish my results here for comparison.
Any suggestions?

I would be interested in posting some desktop benchmarks, but how would we gauge this game?

Spectre666 · Nov 17, 2001, 12:16 AM

I just ordered Baldur's Gate 2 about 30 minutes ago. I'm hoping that it will run decently under OS X, because I'm trying to completely move away from OS 9. When it gets here, I'll post my own perception on how the game performs....after I play it for a few hours first =)

juanvaldes · Nov 17, 2001, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Spectre666:
I just ordered Baldur's Gate 2 about 30 minutes ago. I'm hoping that it will run decently under OS X, because I'm trying to completely move away from OS 9. When it gets here, I'll post my own perception on how the game performs....after I play it for a few hours first =)

Sorry but unless you have a top of the line comp (over 450 DP at least) you will be disappointed and if you go to play under 9, you will not be able to stand how much slower it is under X.

sorry...I wish it wasn't true, I also hate booting back into 9...

Christina · Nov 19, 2001, 11:51 AM

I play BG2 on a G4/867 with a Geforce3 and 768 ram. But, if I enable the 3D acceleration (in 10.1.1), the mouse is horribly slow. But, turning off the 3D acceleration seems to play just fine, more than snappy enough.

Still goofy that it's worse w/my GF3 in X. lol

Christina

juanvaldes · Nov 19, 2001, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Christina:
I play BG2 on a G4/867 with a Geforce3 and 768 ram. But, if I enable the 3D acceleration (in 10.1.1), the mouse is horribly slow. But, turning off the 3D acceleration seems to play just fine, more than snappy enough.

Still goofy that it's worse w/my GF3 in X. lol

Christina

yeah, I don't get it. If you read the FAQ it says to TURN OFF! 3D acceleration to get better performance, if this is teh state of the game why on earth was it realized when a performance enhancer is actually a performance reducer!

a2daj · Nov 19, 2001, 11:39 PM

Based on what the developers have said, BG was tested extensively in 10.0.4 as 10.1 was not final at the time. 3D performance in 10.0.4 is better than 10.1 because there were some changes to OpenGL in 10.1 that negatively affected a few games, including Aliens vs. Predator (the 10.1 final release broke something that worked correctly in all other versions of 10.1) and Baldur's Gate. Unfortunately, I don't have 10.0.4 installed on any machines so I haven't been able to do a comparison.

juanvaldes · Nov 20, 2001, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by a2daj:
 and Baldur's Gate. Unfortunately, I don't have 10.0.4 installed on any machines so I haven't been able to do a comparison.

Really? humm...i do still have 10.0 kicking around in my room, and another HD to install it on...I should do some tests when i get back from break.