Just As We Predicted With Generals

Navaros · May 1, 2003

Don't matter if you have all the best hardware on the Market.
That is totally irrelevant.
Even then, Generals is STILL gonna be an uber-lag-fest due to GameSpy. LOL
Actually, there is no lag at all if both of you have good hardware/connections. Allow me to explain how GameSpy, indeed any such service works.
Matchmaking services such as GameSpy, MSN, WOL, or Bnet are exactly that: matchmaking services. once everybody is connected, they are out of the picture. Everything goes through the host computer. (In 3 player+ QM, the one with the fastest connection is automatically shosen as "host".) Once the game is over, the score is transmitted by the host computer back to the network.
As you can see, GameSpy, WOl, Bnet...it doesen't matter. They have no effect whatsoever on the amount of lag.

this is all a bunch of poppycock. try playing War3 on BNET. there is almost no lag whatsoever. on WOL, you get mad lag in almost every single game. GameSpy lags just the same as WOL, only 10x worse. i don't think you're qualified to be making the kinds of statements you've said in the quoted text because anyone who has played War3 will have realized that as a direct result of Blizzard updating their BNET code, War3 has virtually no lag, ever. whereas WOL and GameSpy have mad lag by *default*.

i am sure someone with a real (ie: not made up off the top of his head ::) ) technical understanding of why War3 never lags on BNET and WOL and GameSpy always does will be able to scientifically verify what i've said here; hopefully there is someone like that on this board

Khan · May 1, 2003

Do you have a rubbish internet connection, mine hardly laggs ever.

Super-ness · May 1, 2003

well i have gamespy and it neva lags!!

DukeLeto · May 1, 2003

this is all a bunch of poppycock. try playing War3 on BNET. there is almost no lag whatsoever. on WOL, you get mad lag in almost every single game. GameSpy lags just the same as WOL, only 10x worse. i don't think you're qualified to be making the kinds of statements you've said in the quoted text because anyone who has played War3 will have realized that as a direct result of Blizzard updating their BNET code, War3 has virtually no lag, ever. whereas WOL and GameSpy have mad lag by *default*.
i am sure someone with a real (ie: not made up off the top of his head ::) ) technical understanding of why War3 never lags on BNET and WOL and GameSpy always does will be able to scientifically verify what i've said here; hopefully there is someone like that on this board

Nyar, maybe? Let's ask Nyar...

And he would say... ::)

Khan · May 1, 2003

well i have gamespy and it neva lags!!

Because you don't actually play over gamespy, you just use it to meet people and find servers.

FireSnake · May 1, 2003

The online community for such a large, new project is INSANELY small. And know why? Not because of the gameplay, settings, characters etc but ah my friend it's the system requirments that screwed the Generals online community over. Just as we forsaw

I second that.

- Matthew

DukeLeto · May 2, 2003

I honestly don't think the requirements are that bad; my computer's a year and a half old, and it runs Generals just fine.

GhostHunter · May 2, 2003

Well excuse me Duke, for the rest of us that have to spend 200$ on a Geforce 4 TI 4800 just to run a damn game ::)

DukeLeto · May 2, 2003

I have an $80 Geforce4 Ti4200 64MB, and it runs the game beuatifully. ::)

GhostHunter · May 2, 2003

Didn't run beuatifully on a TNT2 ;D.

Hawat · May 2, 2003

If the newer computer games would be optimized for older graphic cards the performance would'nt be such a great problem

Cyborg · May 2, 2003

But then the graphics of the games wouldn't be improved...

Hawat · May 2, 2003

True.

I can live with a game that hasn't improved graphics as long as the gameplay is fine. Ok that's just for myself...

Cyborg · May 2, 2003

That's true too.

However, as I upgrade my computer, I'd like to see the gaphics on games improve too.

number6 · May 3, 2003

I will weigh in on this discussion with some of my observations of Generals. First, I agree with the sentiment made by many here that the game is a resource hog. I have never seen such a poorly coded game in quite a while. I have a modest system by todays standards and I don't see that much of a graphic enhancement in Generals to require 1.8Ghz and a Geforce 3 to see respectable performance. I have a Geforce 3 Ti200 with 64MB of video RAM and my processor is a Athlon 1Ghz. The game runs a little choppy even with the graphic effects turned down and the resolution set at 800x600x32. The AI as far as I can tell is no better than Emperor Battle for Dune, it's actually probably a little worse. I think these problems are related to rushing the game out the door to meet a deadline and the game was not designed as well as it could be.

The second point I want to talk about is the apparent network lag some people have had with the game. I have not played Generals online, but I have played Emperor online and noticed some weird stuff going on. I have played other games like Homeworld and Starcraft. Both of these games are coded by different companies obviously. I am not sure about this hand off that the game servers are supposed to be doing, but I will assume that is true. If that is true, then there must be something specific about Westwood/EA games that is causing the problem. Again I have no facts, but I have observed these problems myself when playing on WOL and I am leaning towards the actual network code that Westwood uses is probably the problem. Obviously all of the games are using the same protocols (UDP/TCP) and may very well let the fastest machine be the host (I guess we are talking Quick matches where WOL decides who you will play against). The problem is that each developer has to implement their own way of handling the game server (host) and how it handles requests from the clients (all of the other players). This is probably quite tricky and can very easily cause lag if not implemented well.

I guess I have not really provided any real information other than hunches that I have. All I know is that I have had cable modem for 2.5 years and I have only had problems with WOL. I have not played many games on Gamespy recently. I think the last game I played on that servoce was Klingon Academy and it seemed to play fine. I did notice occasional lag though. With Homeworld I never had a problem and it was a joy to play online. I have also logged many hours playing Age of Empires and Starcraft online with no problems at all.

Terror · May 3, 2003

Geforce 3 ti4200? ;D ;)

Westwood has never been very strong when it comes to netcode. However, i also heard that Klingon Academy doesn't have such a great netcode either, a friend of mine suffered from horrendous lag on Gayspy

number6 · May 3, 2003

Ti 200 Sorry about that. I guess that was me wishing I had a Geforce 4.

Nyarlathotep · May 4, 2003

It's funny to see that my predictions have come true ;D

Terror · May 4, 2003

predictions? predictions? what prediction?

Nyarlathotep · May 5, 2003

I stated it earlier in another thread, but can't find it, but stated it here as well :)

Terror · May 5, 2003

well, it's ought to run fine on a xp2100. I mean i have a t bird 1,33 with gf4 ti4200 128 mb and 512 ram, and the game runs quite decent in 1600x1200x32

Cyborg · May 5, 2003

is there some demo available for this game?

I don't feel like spending extreme amounts on this game if it isn't worth the price.

number6 · May 5, 2003

well, it's ought to run fine on a xp2100. I mean i have a t bird 1,33 with gf4 ti4200 128 mb and 512 ram, and the game runs quite decent in 1600x1200x32

Well a TBird 1.33 Ghz is not far removed from an Xp2100 as far as clock speed is concerned. We are only talking a 400Mhz difference. That problem that nyar mentioned was for a beta release of the software and probably was more buggy than the retail version. Even with the full release it was slow on my 1Ghz Duron. The game box says minimum spec is 800 Mhz processor. I just wish the minimum spec actually meant the game was playable at a decent resolution. Basically you need a high end processor and a maxed out video card to play a game that isn't much better looking graphically than Emperor. This is not a well designed game. Emperor still rules in my opnion.

Terror · May 7, 2003

hmm, well i do understand what you mean. But though the graphics may not be highly superior to emperor's, do keep in mind that the graphical engine is far more complex, and when a lot of units are on the screen, emperor isn't so nice for your computer either. A large group of sardaukar for instance can also turn my Emperor into a crawl.

Nyarlathotep · May 7, 2003

hmm, well i do understand what you mean. But though the graphics may not be highly superior to emperor's, do keep in mind that the graphical engine is far more complex, and when a lot of units are on the screen, emperor isn't so nice for your computer either. A large group of sardaukar for instance can also turn my Emperor into a crawl.

You're right Flame. But my intention of the "warning" was to make users who would fit the minimum specs to not get their hopes up high when trying to play the game ;) And from the looks of it, I was right (unfortunately).

Sign In

Just As We Predicted With Generals

Recommended Posts

Navaros

Khan

Super-ness

DukeLeto

Khan

FireSnake

DukeLeto

GhostHunter

DukeLeto

GhostHunter

Hawat

Cyborg

Hawat

Cyborg

number6

Terror

number6

Nyarlathotep

Terror

Nyarlathotep

Terror

Cyborg

number6

Terror

Nyarlathotep

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information