|
|
The State of Gaming on the Mac
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't want to start a flame war, but being even a casual gamer, the state of gaming on the Mac has me disappointed and frankly even upset. Why can't I fire up Counter Strike or any other old FPS to play with other friends using PCs and Macs? And even when there are some games out there, I can't play them on my MacBook, because they're all spec'd well beyond the capabilities of its underwhelming integrated graphics.
I'm sure there are those of you who think "well, then get a console", or "then get a Windoze PC" or even "Well, you should have gotten a MacBook pro". Thing is, I do have a console, a PS2, which I'm very happy with, but sometimes I want to play on the go, and I'm not going to chug a long my PS2, or be limited by the tiny screen of a handheld gaming system. I just want to play on my Mac!
But I'm not going to use Windoze just to do that, and I'm not going to get a MacBook Pro just to play the occasional game. I'm very happy with PS2 and even sub-PS2 graphics. I'm not expecting high-end graphics in any way. I just want to be able to enjoy a group game on LAN or the Internet, or even by myself. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough. Hopefully you guys have good Mac game suggestions.
But every time the subject of gaming on the Mac comes up, it's one of the few things I need to concede and say "Well, then you're better off using Windoze", which irks me to no end. This, of course, is in addition to my own personal desire to see a wider selection of games on our platform. ([/rant]?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
I agree.
While it's obviously not the end of the world to restart, it's more than that. It's an emotional restart. You're driving to a worse part of town. People stare at you strangely. There's registry hobos sitting in their beige boxes. It's not a nice place. I want to go home before I'm even there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Counter Strike is never coming to the Mac. The original was going to be but was killed toward the end of its port. It's silly to rail over it. The best thing one can do to promote Mac gaming is to support the growth of the platform because that's the only way more game companies will start taking OS X seriously.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
The graphics card angle isn't really about gaming on the Mac, per se — it's just about computer makers using lame hardware. Crysis isn't going to play on your Pentium II-based PC from 1998 either.
For some reason, people take the graphics processor for granted in a way they'd never do with the CPU. If this were a 700 MHz CPU, I think people would more readily go, "Oh, wait, this isn't going to be able to run modern CPU-intensive applications." Yet when Apple puts in a crap GPU, it doesn't click with people that they're not going to be able to run graphics-intensive applications.
Of course, I do agree it's a shame, though. I wish both Apple and game companies would take two seconds out of their day to think about gaming on the Mac.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
Apple's cheapest computer that can even play most recent games is the $1200 iMac, and it's quite puny in that department. You really need the $1500 version at least, and even it isn't going to do so well. Apple's only system that would hold any appeal to gamers is the MacBook Pro, which combines good mobility with good mobile graphics. The Mac Pro is a workstation. If you get one and upgrade the graphics card to an 8800GT, I'm sure it'll tear games to shreds, but you'll end up paying literally thousands more than you need to if all you want is something to play games.
How good a computer is for gaming is almost entirely dependent on how good its graphics card is, and that's one area where companies cut the most corners. A good card for gaming can be purchased for $150 or so. Most computers (even cheap ones) already ship with enough memory and processor speed to handle just about any game at least fairly well, so it really just comes down to the graphics card.
Apple configures their computers (well, iMacs, MacBook Pros, and Mac Pros at least) for "incidental gamers." That is, their computers are fine for people who need a computer for some specific task first and also happen to play games. The Radeon 2600 in the iMac and Mac Pro is not the newest or best-performing graphics card, but it's certainly good enough for incidental gamers. Even the Radeon 2400 in the low-end iMac is okay. But the fact is, if you don't need the extra power and features of a more expensive iMac or Mac Pro for anything other than gaming, you're wasting your money. Just get a Mac that fits your needs and don't think about gaming performance when you buy it.
Now, if you go to Dell or HP, you'll learn that they don't make it particularly cheap to get good graphics either. You have a lot more options than you do with Apple, but it's not a simple matter of just selecting their cheapest computer and configuring it with a gaming graphics card. You'll have to spend at least $1000 to get a computer capable of playing modern games. That's the case even though the graphics card (the only real factor that separates gaming PCs from non-gaming PCs) only costs $150.
Really, if you want a good gaming machine on the cheap, build a PC, or just buy a cheap one and throw a graphics card in the PCIe slot. The cost of a budget gaming PC, which can play just about anything at fairly high settings, is only about $600 using either of these methods.
Oh, and this is why gaming is so sparse on Macs. A lot of Macs don't have dedicated graphics, so they can only play 2D games well. The ones that do have dedicated graphics have only mediocre 3D capabilities, so it's impossible to turn the graphical settings up very high in most new games. The few that can tackle all the latest games are probably not being used for that purpose. Furthermore, since Apple's the only company that makes Macs, there's no alternative Mac gaming machine for gamers to buy, and that ensures that game publishers will never see the Mac as an attractive platform.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: WI, United States
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Counter Strike is never coming to the Mac. The original was going to be but was killed toward the end of its port. It's silly to rail over it. The best thing one can do to promote Mac gaming is to support the growth of the platform because that's the only way more game companies will start taking OS X seriously.
Supporting the platform is a wonderful way of getting developers interested. But, here's the thing. Most Mac games of any popularity are either emulated or ported over, and both result in poorer performance than their PC counterparts. So, though I'd like to support the platform, I don't find it fair that I should have to sacrifice performance. Not to mention the fact that the closest to a gaming machine is a Mac Pro, which is going wayyyy overboard, and is overly expensive for a gaming rig.
I know there are a few natively coded Mac games that are popular and run as well as they do on PC's, but for the majority of them, the performance isn't as great.
|
I have returned... 2020 MacBook Air - 1.1 GHz Quad-Core i5 - 16 GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
UT3 is coming. That engine will power many games, and Epic is excellent at keeping their engine in top form on the Mac.
The basic problem with gaming on the PC and Mac is that game developers don't support a wide enough range of hardware. A brand new game usually requires equally new hardware too. This is unacceptable. Developers need to make game preferences with smaller texture sizes, disable flashy effects, and simpler geometry whenever possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
Unreal Engine 3 is actually very scalable and still looks great on older hardware. When I say "older" I mean basically any of the GPUs in current Macs. Maybe one generation back is okay too.
As for developers allowing more options to scale back the effects... well, most games do offer a lot of settings. The problem is twofold:
1. Games that get ported to Mac are usually really badly ported, giving reduced performance.
2. Few Macs have decent GPUs.
It's important for an engine to be able to scale well to older hardware, because otherwise they're shutting out a lot of potential customers. But it's equally important for computer builders to provide adequate graphics processors. And it's ALSO important for the GPU makers themselves to create decent GPUs. That's not a problem for ATI and nVidia (even their lowest-end products right now are quite capable), but Intel's integrated graphics are inexcusably bad, to the point where many games won't even start on computers equipped with them.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
The graphics card angle isn't really about gaming on the Mac, per se — it's just about computer makers using lame hardware. Crysis isn't going to play on your Pentium II-based PC from 1998 either.
For some reason, people take the graphics processor for granted in a way they'd never do with the CPU. If this were a 700 MHz CPU, I think people would more readily go, "Oh, wait, this isn't going to be able to run modern CPU-intensive applications." Yet when Apple puts in a crap GPU, it doesn't click with people that they're not going to be able to run graphics-intensive applications.
Of course, I do agree it's a shame, though. I wish both Apple and game companies would take two seconds out of their day to think about gaming on the Mac.
Agreed 100%
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
I would gladly pay somewhere between $100-$150 more if need be for a decent GPU on the MacBook that could let me play the much-touted EA (or other) games, for instance. But I'm not willing to fork over another $500+ for it, either.
I don't think MacBooks (or other Macs) are a bad deal in any way, it's just that I wish I could trade in some CPU clock cycles or a reasonable amount of cash for some improved graphics capabilities for the occasional game. "Casual gamer" doesn't mean you have to stick to puzzle games, for crying out loud. Of course, that's hoping that the developers would follow, too (which I think is not outside of reason).
I even wonder how playable (if at all) Starcraft II is going to be on a GMA MacBook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
Probably not at all, though it depends on future versions of Intel's integrated graphics. They might eventually improve them enough to handle future games, but I wouldn't count on any current GMA MacBooks to be able to handle Starcraft 2.
It's a lot harder with laptops because better graphics chipsets don't just increase the cost, they also increase the power requirements and the heat generated. You can't just throw a dedicated GPU in a notebook like you can with a desktop. It would involve redesigning the cooling system to be more effective, moving interior components around to accommodate this new system, and including a larger power supply and higher-capacity battery to deal with the greater power draw (or simply living with less battery life).
But with desktops, there's really no excuse not to include a decent GPU (other than cost). If consumers want to spend $100-$200 more for the ability to play current and future games at their screen's native resolution, they should be able to.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status:
Offline
|
|
Do a search on youtube for "cod2 macbook" and you'll see someone running ... CoD2 on their MacBook.
I see better performance of CoD2 running under Tiger on my C2Duo iMac than CoD2 running under XP.
If you don't mind the crap graphics but like running around blasting things, have a go of Nexiuz - free FPS for Mac, Linux and Windows. Quite a few servers out there as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
You could give Urban Terror http://www.urbanterror.net a try. It seems quite similar to CS to me and it's free, and runs on the Mac!
Also have you considered Crossover Games? CodeWeavers - Your Home for Windows Compatibility on Mac and Linux? It's a bit of software that allows you to run some Windows games on your Mac, they specifically state that all steam games should work, although what kind of performance you can expect with that kind of GPU I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|