Would you like to have BioShock support Shader Model 2.0? - Let Your Voice Be Heard!

[robottik]

Would you like to have BioShock support Shader Model 2.0?

[Mad Max]

Just buy a new graphics card..

[Maniac]

SM 2.0 is dead. We can't be all living in caves harvesting dirt, innovations come in strides.

[jkevinf]

Lol, it hasn't even been around that long. Christ almighty, even Crysis is compatible with SM 2.0. Sorry we can't all be rich pricks and/or have their parents by them new computers every 2 weeks.

[Super Pancake]

Why not UE3 is scalable to shader 2.0

[flapjacks]

Wow, I didn't know that 100 dollar video cards (8600 GT) are for rich people.
....
Seriously, just buy one. That the X series ATI cards do not have SM3 is an oversight on ATI's part, not on 2K's part. Also, it has been clearly stated that the game requires Shader Model 3. Not just on the box. Also on the forums. Also on the game's website. Also on Steam. Also on just about every video game site.

[robottik]

Just buy a new graphics card..

I take Paypal... send it on over

[robottik]

Wow, I didn't know that 100 dollar video cards (8600 GT) are for rich people.
.

Bad math. $140 for the card + $50 for the game = $190 to play A GAME

[robottik]

Sign the petition too :D

http://www.petitiononline.com/BioShock/petition.html

[baconbits]

No, stop being a whiny ***** and buy a decent video card.

[baconbits]

Bad math. $140 for the card + $50 for the game = $190 to play A GAME

and exactly how much did you spend on you're entire computer?

and i would like to ask have you ever bought any consoles?

I like how you act like bioshock is the only game you can play when you upgrade your video card.

If you don't like it buy a console, oh wait thats 280 (core system) for a soon to be paper weight (after it overheats and blows up).

[elwood]

sorry guys but I have an excellent graphics card but i am having Shader model issues. So it's not always about cost.

2k put the requirements for the game to run and if your computer meets the requirements then responsiblity falls to them, not us, not matter how cheap or expensive the cost

[robottik]

No, stop being a whiny ***** and buy a decent video card.

Mmmmmm.... bacon bits...... Hey, thanks for the bump! :p

PS - sign the petition (800+ signatures so far!)
http://www.petitiononline.com/BioShock/petition.html

[sgi02]

I really hope they come out with support for 3DFX Glide while they are at it!

[Viz79]

Yeah just buy a new graphics card. Some people are truly idiots.

I have a Radeon X850XL - it runs Fear on full settings etc. It is TWO years old and is three times faster than its equiv Nvidia card with PS 3.0 support. This is happening because ATI took longer to add the support to their cards.

My card has gone from running games on their highest settings to not running a game at all. And you want me to buy a new card? You must be out of your head.

Three games, count it just THREE games are asking for this - Bioshock, Crysis and Jericho. Even the next release of UT is 2.0 compliant and its their engine! And worst, the hackers have already shown that the game would have run fast on PS 2.0 cards if they hadnt forced it to be 3.0 compliant i.e. it didnt NEED to have it at all!

This poll is ridiculous obviously the Xboxers and those that cards will say no - like they care. The survey and the mayhem in the tech forums may be a little more helpful to the devs.

[Biggles]

Do any of you guys recommend an AGP card for me to upgrade from a Radeon 9800XT ? I don't want to compromise the performance of my 9800xt just for the sake of SM3.0 ?
Can anyone recommend a decent card?

[millartime2203]

If it can be done then do it! If i can play any other new games upcomming for the next little while why would i upgrade my gfx card now? X800 Pro still works great with most other new games.

[MrGosh]

Yeah just buy a new graphics card. Some people are truly idiots.

I have a Radeon X850XL - it runs Fear on full settings etc. It is TWO years old and is three times faster than its equiv Nvidia card with PS 3.0 support. This is happening because ATI took longer to add the support to their cards.

My card has gone from running games on their highest settings to not running a game at all. And you want me to buy a new card? You must be out of your head.

Three games, count it just THREE games are asking for this - Bioshock, Crysis and Jericho. Even the next release of UT is 2.0 compliant and its their engine! And worst, the hackers have already shown that the game would have run fast on PS 2.0 cards if they hadnt forced it to be 3.0 compliant i.e. it didnt NEED to have it at all!

This poll is ridiculous obviously the Xboxers and those that cards will say no - like they care. The survey and the mayhem in the tech forums may be a little more helpful to the devs.

I have the ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum in my very expensive DELL XPS Gen box, i was always of the thought i would have to upgrade it when the next UT came out but to have to upgrade over shaders? half a year or more early for one singel game.(maybe two Jericho sounds interesting) I'm gunna wait a bit longer and see if ATI puts out another hotfix or Someone patches their software.
When they put the post up they should've said only vote if you have a pc and purchased the pc version.

[TurdFergasun]

i'd personally like to see bioshock suddenly drop ps 3.0, and go strictly with 4.0 dx 10 to obsolete all these whiney trolls. what will you say in 6 monthes when your $600 8800 gtx only gets 20 fps in the newest dx 10 games? the current lineup of dx 10 cards is a complete waste of money if all you're going to get to play smooth are 6 upcoming dx 10 games. $600 for a decent performing card that will support ps 3.0 and ps 4.0 at the moment and will play dx 10 for the 6 or so upcoming major titles . Why would anyone want to go and buy a cheap upgrade to a x800 with some POS 8800 gts that will be completely useless in 6 monthes?

[Tritoch]

It's simply pathetic people are trying their hardest to make sure that some people cannot play the game, people that may not have enough money to get a graphics card, let alone a new game. For all you know, they could have just gotten the computer they use from a friend and Bioshock is something they could barely afford.

Quit being *******s, letting more people be able to play doesn't effect you at all.

[Wittman]

System requirements were provided before the game was released, if you didnt take the time read them for yourself...

As far as whether the developers should have supported shader 2.0 from the start. Well that is entirely their own decision. Not providing a product to a group of potential customers may be a bad finacial move, or maybe not. But it is their choice nonetheless.

I would personally like it to run on shader 2.0, cause then my cousin could also be enjoying the game, but that is not up to me now is it?

[Jimmus]

What's next, a petition to let the original Xbox run Bioshock too? Do you sit around and complain that games for the PS2 don't run on the Wii, too? How about letting me run Bioshock on my refrigerator and a television set?

I should have tried this tack in the military. "Hey, you guys. You're all running too fast. Slow down, run at my pace!"

[Mastamule]

It's simply pathetic people are trying their hardest to make sure that some people cannot play the game, people that may not have enough money to get a graphics card, let alone a new game. For all you know, they could have just gotten the computer they use from a friend and Bioshock is something they could barely afford.

Quit being *******s, letting more people be able to play doesn't effect you at all.

I second that man. Why are you guys so against us being able to run the game on our current graphics card? We've already gotten it to run to some extent so getting it SM2 compatible is not impossible. There's no point in rubbing your SM3 cards in our face and telling us to go buy one ourselves...

[Mastamule]

As for the main purpose of this thread...yes, and a great many other people would too. The teams behind bioshock have come into contact with the users trying to mod it to be compatible, so it should be only a matter of a days or weeks before the problem is solved. Take notice in the technical support:

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5680

and also there's a nice little petition we've got going on to help convince 2K to help us out:

http://www.petitiononline.com/BioShock/petition.html

It's only a matter of time.

[NovaGnome]

Guys, Why The **** Dont You Support This Game On The Oroginal Xbox????//////////// You Obviously Dont Care About The People That Play Your Games. Sign Below In Blood From You Left Ass Chheek If You Think 2k Screwed Us Original Xbox Players...................................

Down With 2k!!!!!!

Get Ready For A Lawsuit Levine!!!!!!!11111111111

[Glottis]

Just buy a new graphics card..


+ 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00

I vote NO,they have to have a cut off point,or then the people with Geforce 256 SDR' cards (yes I still have mine) will be here demanding patches and screaming for blood as well.It never ends,Legacy hardware has to have a cut off point.

Seriously,Shader 3.0+ cards can be had for cheap now.Check out Newegg or NCIX if in Canada....

[Glottis]

Guys, Why The **** Dont You Support This Game On The Oroginal Xbox????//////////// You Obviously Dont Care About The People That Play Your Games. Sign Below In Blood From You Left Ass Chheek If You Think 2k Screwed Us Original Xbox Players...................................

Down With 2k!!!!!!

Get Ready For A Lawsuit Levine!!!!!!!11111111111


LOLOLOL :D

I cant stop laughing now.... :D

Damn straight and what of my Vectrex and colecovision god damn it !?!?!?!??!? :mad:

This just in on Digg !

Large mob outside 2K Boston studios are now demanding Bioshock support
the Lisa,the Atari 5200 and Commodore 64 ! Police riot squads are being brought in now,and the national guard are on high alert ! :p

[dragon0421]

Seriously,Shader 3.0+ cards can be had for cheap now.Check out Newegg or NCIX if in Canada....

Sure I can throw $100 away on a card that's crappier than my X850 just so I can run one game. Great.

System requirements were provided before the game was released, if you didnt take the time read them for yourself...

No. The system requirements do not list anything about SM3. All I see is a list of cards that my X850 is better than.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1579

[gooface]

stop keeping old technology and upgrade, geeze I have a SM 4.0 card and you are still stuck with a 2.0 card, wow people need to understand with gaming you dont keep parts for that long and sometimes for some games you have to make sacrifices to play them AKA upgrading...its not like this is the only game that will require this, i predict when sm 4.0 is required and sm 5.0 cards are out people will be *****ing that their sm 3.0 card isnt supported anymore and they are outraged...ah people are so ignorant sometimes...

[gooface]

Sure I can throw $100 away on a card that's crappier than my X850 just so I can run one game. Great.



No. The system requirements do not list anything about SM3. All I see is a list of cards that my X850 is better than.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1579

im sorry if it takes some thinking on your part to understand requirements, but ill make it simple for you YOU DONT HAVE A directx 9.0c card, and it states that it requires one, the x1300 and the 6600 are the worst cards that both companys make that have 9.0c capabilities, and your x850 is a 9.0b card, which is SM 2.0 not a 9.0c card that has sm 3.0, THEY DONT HAVE TO STATE that it is SM 3.0 when DIRECTX 9.0C implys that.

[Martin C]

im sorry if it takes some thinking on your part to understand requirements, but ill make it simple for you YOU DONT HAVE A directx 9.0c card, and it states that it requires one, the x1300 and the 6600 are the worst cards that both companys make that have 9.0c capabilities, and your x850 is a 9.0b card, which is SM 2.0 not a 9.0c card that has sm 3.0, THEY DONT HAVE TO STATE that it is SM 3.0 when DIRECTX 9.0C implys that.

QFT. ALways check out the system requirements before purchasing a game and make sure that your hardware supports it. I don't understand how lazy some people can get when it comes to PC gaming. As for people complaining about the cost of PC gaming, I'm suprised people think they can get off with being cheap. PC gaming has always been an expensive pursuit. You want to stay ahead of the pack you upgrade, the trick is to research any potential upgrade and balance it against the cost.

Saying all that though if 2K do go ahead and support SM 2.0 don't be suprised if the game looks rubbish and plays like crap, there must be a technical reason for lack of SM 2.0 from release.

Martin C x

P.S I have two 7900GS in Sli so I'd hardly class myself as being a rich twat rubbing it in.

[TurdFergasun]

it's funny in days like these, corporations don't even have to pay these sheep to push their tech, the propeganda twists them all up into a frothing mess all by itself. It's like the people are against getting your monies worth for a product. Just ****ing laughable sheep, and i'm sure they'll continue bleating their manipulated-weak-minded message.

[Hashmiir]

I can run the game with max settings and have no problems. My system is pretty good.

Still I see no reason to not have a little more backwards compatability with this game if technology will allow and no sacrafice is made for the quality on high end systems.

[bosskt2bb]

I am aware my system may not be top of the line, I have been upgrading at a pace my pocket book will allow.

However at this point I need a new power supply in order to just run a decent graphics card that will be worth the cost of upgrading. So I am not only looking at a minimum of 100 bucks for the card and 49.95 for the game but I'm also needing a new power supply which will cost me an additional 100 bucks.

The elitist forum trolls with their trust funds living in their parents house rent free who are saying there has to be a cut off point etc need to grow up and move out of the house and into the real world where people have lives and expenses and cant afford to upgrade every 3 months.

Backwards compatibility doesn't hurt you. Hell I downloaded a demo for a game that is backwards compatible to shader 1.0 and its a brand new release. Guess what? I can play it on 2.0 shader and it doesn't effect me at all that others can play it at 1.0. I get a prettier game but they get to enjoy it as well. We BOTH get to say WOW how neat this game is, Im glad I can play it, Ill gladly pay for this game so they can make a sequel.

Me personally, I just moved across the country and left my wife behind so I could get a decent job and live in a place where we could afford a nice home and a family. My priority is saving money to get my wife out here with me not on some shiny new video card to replace the one I bought a year and a half ago. So for all of you who want to tell me to stop being cheap and upgrade, I tell you what, you cough up 3000 dollars to move all my storage and my wife across the country to live with me plus Ill need about 5000 bucks for a new car so I can drive to and from work and stop borrowing my friends car and Ill go out and buy a brand new system.

Backwards compatibility doesn't ruin your enjoyment of the game. And if your worried about a game being delayed so they can add it, FINE Release the game 3.0 required and make an OPTIONAL PATCH to make it 2.0 playable.

Ill HAPPILY download 7 gigs worth of patches if I have to to play it on 2.0. You elitist trolls dont have to do a thing, just go about playing your game and posting your brag pictures of your "uber" systems so you can feel superior to everyone. Me personally, ill put my gaming dollars into something else and into another company that actually cares about happy customers over proving who has the biggest pair to the other gaming companies. "ooohh look at us we have 3.0 required, your game is only 2.0 LAWLS You suck at game making!!!! ZOMG!!!!"

[Nebunu]

all the homos with x2900's and n8800's voted NO ... hell why should the little guyz have a damn little patch so they can play this... if they get past the installation ahahahaha

[NovaGnome]

LOLOLOL :D

I cant stop laughing now.... :D

Damn straight and what of my Vectrex and colecovision god damn it !?!?!?!??!? :mad:

This just in on Digg !

Large mob outside 2K Boston studios are now demanding Bioshock support
the Lisa,the Atari 5200 and Commodore 64 ! Police riot squads are being brought in now,and the national guard are on high alert ! :p


hahaha. Thats awesome.

Buy a new video card, turds.

[Shredded_Wheat]

To an extent I can see having to upgrade to a better card that supports SM 3.0 but for someone on a budget that wants DX 10 the current options of either an 8600GT or 2600XT are pointless. They are slightly faster than an
x850xt pe. Ati and Nvidia failed gamers when they released these big piles of crappola! Crysis and other games are going to bring these cards to their knees!

[Halberd1216]

I was going to post a deep and intelligent reply to those people who do not have the Shader 2.0 problem.....but having read all of your childish response's i think i would be wasting my precious time,and any indepth response would certainly go over your heads,so i will keep it simple with smaller words.

Some of us have to work for a living,and have many items to fund and pay for,that are a tad more important than a games computer,like children,rent,fuel and tax.....when you get older and actually have to earn a living yourself you might have a slightly different outlook on....... " just go out and get a new card dude! "......

As i state, a lot of people use their computers for casual games and entertainment....they dont have a sad little compulsion to instantly go out and purchase the latest and often totally unneeded tech,especially if its for a single game.Simply upgrading a card is now no longer an option for a lot of machines....your looking at a complete motherboard...memory...processor....power supply and card....ah what the heck,it would be cheaper just to get a brand new system....yes thats ideal unless you have got an otherwise very powerful computer that just happens to be 2 years old with an AGP graphics port.

Card requirements seem to have got lost in translation somewhere havent they?...i assume a lot of people,and it appears to be quite a lot indeed have wrongly assumed that the requirements for your card were based on its handling of the graphics load......that is why a large number of older cards score very highly in the performance charts,where they out-perform the newer dx10,shader 3.0 enabled ( but less grunty ) cards...if your old card performs better than a more expensive new card...why buy it?

As i state,im a casual gamer...got too many important things in the real world to get especially upset about this little debacle.Taking my copy back in the morning and that will be the end of it.....i wont be too heartbroken...after all we have got Fallout 3...Enemy Territory...STALKER Clear Skies all coming out in th near future,i will take a bet that none of them will fall into the controversy that has enveloped Bioshock with its lack of support for over half of the potential playerbase.

[thrall]

Please support Shader Model 2, 2K Games. I am a poor college student with hardly enough cash for gas, let alone an upgrade for my Sexxy X850 XT PE. I just got the damn card before college.

[HeroOHyrule]

As has been stated the ability to run the program in shader 2.0 has been brought up in every thread I have read online about bioshock. The general consensus among every intelligent post I have read was that the 360 development took all precedent and the only real effort put forth in the PC programing was all the pirate protection. I find this unacceptable if true. I have both 360 and a PC that until now has run all games perfectly. I prefer the mouse and keyboard, and after Halo 2 ran perfectly, and never having a problem running any game at full on my ATI X850XL I felt Bioshock would be more enjoyable and would run well on my computer. Now I understand that I might have to drop down my graphics a bit from optimal but to not run at all was a complete shock to me, and if the truth is that shader 2.0 would run, and 2K just didn't take the time to adapt the program then they are spitting in the face of there gamer patrons. As one now on a tight budget I can no longer drop $350 on a new card and would still like to enjoy there product. If my card is the real reason then I can accept that, but if they just didn't take the time to properly build there product than that is something I feel we all should take offense to.

[Oxidan]

Wtf !?! Why isn't my Riva 128 card supported??? It supports Direct X so let me play bioshock with it, damn it!!

[BES]

Alot of you people dont realize that computer technology changes every 6months, so game companies will most likely go for the newer tech to make their games.

why?....because its BETTER

EVERYONE should realize this if you own a computer and should be prepared to upgrade when needed, eventually shader 2.0 will cease to exist completely,its already started,games like Bioshock are now supporting 3.0-4.0 shaders...along with many others..
An exception seems to be Crysis, I agree that game companies should support shader 2.0 but its just not practical with all the new tech coming out..

[Y|yukichigai]

im sorry if it takes some thinking on your part to understand requirements, but ill make it simple for you YOU DONT HAVE A directx 9.0c card, and it states that it requires one, the x1300 and the 6600 are the worst cards that both companys make that have 9.0c capabilities, and your x850 is a 9.0b card, which is SM 2.0 not a 9.0c card that has sm 3.0, THEY DONT HAVE TO STATE that it is SM 3.0 when DIRECTX 9.0C implys that. Apparently they do if they want people to actually understand what the requirements are. Frankly, very few people are aware of the differences between DX9.0b and DX9.0c; to most it's just a little letter on the end, so there can't be that much difference. (Or so the rationale goes) Besides, if your product's requirements box relies on "implying" information then you need to have your technical writer fired and hunted for sport.

Anyway, given that there is a (semi-)working third-party patch out there that allows SM2.0 cards to run the game I see no reason why 2k shouldn't include official support in a subsequent patch. The worst case scenario is that a segment of players will get somewhat neutered and crap-looking particle effects, and since pretty much everyone not running the game on Vista already gets that (with the water, certainly) I doubt many will notice and/or care.

Finally, while it is reasonable to assume that you will have to upgrade your video card eventually, I have NEVER been in a situation when a video card less than two years old is incapable of running a new game. Incapable of running it WELL, maybe, but at least it would run.

[dferdog]

Well for all those people who think there are only a few people who want a shader model 2.0 patch from 2k, there are now 6500 people signed up to the petition for an official patch. I am one of those and have also downloaded a patch that someone put together in a week that works pretty well apart from lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggg download times. If an independent programmer managed it, I think a big company like 2k should be able to.
And for all those plebs who keep rattling on about checking specs..this is a pretty obscure requirement for the average gamer.
My main problem now is, having played the games for a few hours, I dont actually think it's that great a game. Give me Far Cry every time.

[Bioshafted]

I signed it, and I have a shader 3 card ^_^ ./me gives love to the SM2 users.

(and not that kinda love you pervs)

[turn2dust]

to all you morons who say 'buy a new video card', this isn't an option for someone who has a laptop with a video system thats part of the motherboard.

this is something that the developers should have considered from the beginning.

[Greenblurr93]

i learned the hard way if you have a laptop that isnt specifically designed for gaming... dont bother buying high end games....

[BES]

i learned the hard way if you have a laptop that isnt specifically designed for gaming... dont bother buying high end games....

Thats happening alot lately :-) , people buying the game BEFORE reading the requirements.
Its simple and its been said like 800times, if your computer DOES NOT MEET OR PASS the requirements on the box do not buy it!
I hope 2k ignores all you stupid people, except the ones with legit problems, the problem isnt legit if its clearly on the box and you didnt read or ignored the system requirements..

[GRYPHON_THEDOG]

yes, all you stupid people who would give your money for this game please go away until you come back with a star on your belly or don't bother coming back..

the prima donna attitude that you either play it on the newest card or NOT AT ALL does wonders for 2ks image. laziness and greed plus a flock of flying forum monkeys from the planet nvidia. welcome to crapture...

bumpier bump maps don't make games better.. you don't shoot walls or water or smoke effects.

No brand new visual effects are offered by 3.0. none. optimized instruction sets are not seen by the user but apparently can be felt in their bank accounts...

making the game PLAY better is laudable.
making the game audience more EXCLUSIVE as a side effect of making it look slightly SHINIER is dumb.
upgrade or don't play, wonderful marketing strategy.

[Septic]

Upgrade or don't play - translates to: meet the game requirements or you can't play. It's been in the game industry for years. What's the problem?

[ReverendTed]

Upgrade or don't play - translates to: meet the game requirements or you can't play. It's been in the game industry for years. What's the problem?His argument is that Irrational\2k's decision to set the system requirements where they are was arbitrary and unnecessary.

I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, but this quote is correct:No brand new visual effects are offered by 3.0. none. optimized instruction sets are not seen by the user but apparently can be felt in their bank accounts...

[SliderFury]

His argument is that Irrational\2k's decision to set the system requirements where they are was arbitrary and unnecessary.

I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, but this quote is correct:

Yeah, I've seen screens of the SM 2.0 thingy that these guys are doing, it looks pretty much the same, so that does seem to beg the question why the couldn't either implement both, or just stick with 2.0. Something tells me nvidia's little "the way it's meant to be played" catch phrase might have something to do with this lol

[SliderFury]

I bet if for some reason 2K was working directly with ATI instead of nvidia, it would have been SM 2.0 cause ATI cards are just recently getting it; nvidias had it since...the 6800 I believe. Questions, questions...

[rev1]

I bet if for some reason 2K was working directly with ATI instead of nvidia, it would have been SM 2.0 cause ATI cards are just recently getting it; nvidias had it since...the 6800 I believe. Questions, questions...

I believe ati implemented sm3.0 in their x1800 series, bottom line if at the time you were stupid enough to buy a POS x800 series card you get what you deserve now, so stop whining about 2.0 support.

[ReverendTed]

I believe ati implemented sm3.0 in their x1800 series, bottom line if at the time you were stupid enough to buy a POS x800 series card you get what you deserve now, so stop whining about 2.0 support.Ok, I've heard this flame-bait claim enough, and I'm going to stoop to addressing it.

No one is "stupid" for purchasing an X800.
People who bought X800s got a card that offered exceptional performance at an affordable price-point - a card that runs nearly every game released until just recently. The fact that the card wasn't supported by Bioshock's developers is hardly enough to qualify someone as a fool for purchasing it. Eventually, everyone has to upgrade, whether they purchased an X800 or an X2600.

If anything - and this is all I'll grant you - it qualifies its owner as someone who likely did not know or care about the technical details and implications of Microsoft's convoluted DirectX Shader Model standards - and someone who, at the time, had no evidence that there was a reason to care about these distinctions.

[Wavelord]

i started petition
i want a sega game gear version of bioshock! no shaders at all plz i don't like them.
no seriously, my pc is two years old (7800 gt) it runs perfect.

[thrall]

This thread is more bickering from SM 3 card owners. Get a ****ing life. If we want to demand SM 2.0 we can if we want, we are consumers. We live in a world where consumer demand causes companies to change their strategy. Don't act like a douche because we want perfectly good video cards supported.

[BES]

Look at this and weep...another game going 3.0-4.0

http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_worldinconflict_videos.html

[ReverendTed]

Look at this and weep...another game going 3.0-4.0
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_worldinconflict_videos.htmlAh! Perhaps that game's rendering engine will have a good reason for not supporting 2.0.

[BES]

Ah! Perhaps that game's rendering engine will have a good reason for not supporting 2.0.

I thought I read somewhere that the Unreal3 Engine used for Bioshock is MODIFIED by the Bioshock team, so its not the NORMAL one that supports the shader 2.0 features of the older cards..

So yeah mybe they could support shader 2.0 in a patch, but they would have to remove all the modifications to the Engine for it to properly work with shader 2.0 cards..
I personally like the modifications, it does look quite stunning with shader 4.0, no its not just lighting changes(some idiot on here said why do I have to buy a new card for new lights)...

If anyone else looked at those videos of World In Conflict I linked to you would see what your missing without a shader 3.0-4.0 card...keep thinking your not missing anything by not upgrading..

[Anei]

its funny, for all the 'tens of thousands' of people 'suffering' without SM2 support, only 130 of them have voted....oh wiat, 55 of them said 'no'....so only 75 angry SM2 users. Not excatly 'tens of thousands'.

[AC!D]

Just buy a new graphics card..

just like that ey.... not everyone is on centrelink and government welfare playing computer games 24/7 some have KIDS some have LIVES and some ARE KIDS including my self and its kinda hard to convice my parents to buy a new computer just like that considering they brought this one last year

[Earthanoid]

its funny, for all the 'tens of thousands' of people 'suffering' without SM2 support, only 130 of them have voted....oh wiat, 55 of them said 'no'....so only 75 angry SM2 users. Not excatly 'tens of thousands'.

If you've read any part of this thread at all, you'd realize that everyone voting No on this poll are people who have SM3.0 cards telling everyone else to buy a new video cards.

[BES]

Woot look shader 2.0 peeps.. another 2 games going shader 3.0-4.0!

http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_quakewars_home.html

http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_ptboats_home.html

The hole for shader 2.0s coffin is getting deeper!..lol

That quakewars looks AWSOME!...jaw dropping :-)

[Madfecker]

It is supported on 2.0 view my thread,:D

2K might support ATI if they payed them more than Nvidia:cool:

dont believe the tripe-hype, Bioshock runs on 2.0 shader:D

Its only nvidia trying to con the gamer's <---might be their next slogan oop's i all-ready see it as that!!

Peace 2 Gamer's!!! dont get ripped off by unscrupulous add-men trying to tell you "you need to up-grade to PS 3.0":rolleyes:

[Madfecker]

Woot look shader 2.0 peeps.. another 2 games going shader 3.0-4.0!

http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_quakewars_home.html

http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_ptboats_home.html

The hole for shader 2.0s coffin is getting deeper!..lol

That quakewars looks AWSOME!...jaw dropping :-)

Bez is a retard but i guess everyone figured that all-ready ........right:D :D

[Madfecker]

Strange bes is a nickname for elizabeth, things that make you go hmmmm haha 2K's meddling knows-no bounds. FACT:mad:

2K takes money from nvidia to promote their lesser cards FACT
2K pretends 3.0 shaders are any diffrent than 2.0 FACT
2K puts root-kits on there Demo's FACT:mad:

ATI refuse too pay 2K money FACT
ATI knows there is no diffrence between 2.0 3.0 4.0 other than a lying manufacturer of less powerful cards than ATI FACT:D

Dont believe the tripe hype!! 3.0 an 4.0 are the equivelant of "new & improved" products yeah thats right rhymes with hollox FACT:D

[ReverendTed]

Strange bes is a nickname for elizabeth, things that make you go hmmmm haha 2K's meddling knows-no bounds. FACT:mad:

2K takes money from nvidia to promote their lesser cards FACT
2K pretends 3.0 shaders are any diffrent than 2.0 FACT
2K puts root-kits on there Demo's FACT:mad:

ATI refuse too pay 2K money FACT
ATI knows there is no diffrence between 2.0 3.0 4.0 other than a lying manufacturer of less powerful cards than ATI FACT:D

Dont believe the tripe hype!! 3.0 an 4.0 are the equivelant of "new & improved" products yeah thats right rhymes with hollox FACT:DJust because we have plenty of ignorant trolls on the "buy a new card" side of this argument already doesn't mean we have to balance that out with our own.
Getting angry and (no pun intended) irrational about your cause only serves to weaken your argument.
There are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made in favor of SM2.0 support, but the ones iterated above are not among them.

[rev1]

This thread is more bickering from SM 3 card owners. Get a ****ing life. If we want to demand SM 2.0 we can if we want, we are consumers. We live in a world where consumer demand causes companies to change their strategy. Don't act like a douche because we want perfectly good video cards supported.

Perfectly old cards i think he ment, this is like beating a square peg into a circle hole if you think for one minute that this game or any games developer after this is going to support sm2.0

[nukeofwf]

ok, and i am reading from the BOX, Minimum System Requirements, Video Card: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB Ram (Nvidia 6600 or better/ ATI x1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550)
first, what is the deal with the 1550, and second IT MENTIONS NOTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL SHADER MODEL VERSION!
OH, and I have it running on an ATI X850 for now till i can shell out the 90 or so bucks for a Nvidia 8 series. I feel that the game could have been SM2 with very little problems. Anyway, I almost did not choose to buy this game, but thanks to internet gods like WarAnakin and ScottJG, I gave it a chance, and love it in all its SM2 glory.

[GRYPHON_THEDOG]

its funny, for all the 'tens of thousands' of people 'suffering' without SM2 support, only 130 of them have voted....oh wiat, 55 of them said 'no'....so only 75 angry SM2 users. Not excatly 'tens of thousands'.

7120 more like, not everyone likes trolls enough to come to this site..

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?BioShock

7000 potential customers. that's only $350,000 worth of sales so I understand not spending a dime to lure those customers in.

fanboys, please explain to us ignorant how 3.0 shader looks better than 2.0.

100 words or less, Why 3.0 LOOKS BETTER THAN 2.0

go research, we'll be here..

when you come to the conclusion they basically look THE SAME with one placing less of a load on the GPU than the other you may just shut the hell up, who knows...

[Sprawl]

everyone keeps saying that it says nothing about the Shader model

however it does. Direct X 9.0c is a clear requiremnt. And as part of the Direct X 9.0c standard, a card has to have SM3

however to a non techie, you might not know that.

But it's not fair to say that its not there. X800 series cards are only Direct X 9.0b compliant

[Septic]

ok, and i am reading from the BOX, Minimum System Requirements, Video Card: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB Ram (Nvidia 6600 or better/ ATI x1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550)
first, what is the deal with the 1550, and second IT MENTIONS NOTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL SHADER MODEL VERSION!
OH, and I have it running on an ATI X850 for now till i can shell out the 90 or so bucks for a Nvidia 8 series. I feel that the game could have been SM2 with very little problems. Anyway, I almost did not choose to buy this game, but thanks to internet gods like WarAnakin and ScottJG, I gave it a chance, and love it in all its SM2 glory.

It states that you need a DirectX 9.0c compliant video card, not compatible like most games. If your card complies with the 9.0c standard, it'd have SM3.

[Sprawl]

saw this comparison posted before in here

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=129071&postcount=41

SM2
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3193/after1vt3.jpg

SM3
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6751/sm3dx9shot2as1.jpg

[ReverendTed]

Woot look shader 2.0 peeps.. another 2 games going shader 3.0-4.0!
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_quakewars_home.html
The hole for shader 2.0s coffin is getting deeper!..lol
That quakewars looks AWSOME!...jaw dropping :-)From the Quake Wars demo readme:ATI Radeon 9700 or higher ATI Radeon X700 or higher

[ReverendTed]

saw this comparison posted before in here
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=129071&postcount=41

SM2
Image

SM3
Another imageA couple of points here:
1) The SM2.0 patches are a work in progress. Particle effects are a significant part of why those images are different. We've got a few different avenues of pursuit on the particle front right now, but still nothing that works 100%.
2) What card was that SM3.0 screenshot taken from? Will an NVIDIA 6600 run the game like that with any expectation of respectable framerates? Our argument isn't that we can expect to turn everything on and up and compete with a GeForce 8600 - we're arguing that we can get at least as many features running as a 6600 can afford to keep on (and possibly more), and get better framerates in that state. (Anyone who has to turn "High Detail Shaders" off to get decent performance is already beat, from my perspective.)

[damicatz]

Shader Model 2.0 doesn't allow for the precision or shader length needed for HDR or the complex lighting calculations that Bioshock uses. Which is why the SM 2.0 "patch" looks like crap.

I love how everyone here thinks they are a graphics programmer. Next time, try reading the system requirements before you buy the game.

7120 more like, not everyone likes trolls enough to come to this site..

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?BioShock

7000 potential customers. that's only $350,000 worth of sales so I understand not spending a dime to lure those customers in.

fanboys, please explain to us ignorant how 3.0 shader looks better than 2.0.

100 words or less, Why 3.0 LOOKS BETTER THAN 2.0

go research, we'll be here..

when you come to the conclusion they basically look THE SAME with one placing less of a load on the GPU than the other you may just shut the hell up, who knows...

[damicatz]

And more information :
http://timeslip.chorrol.com/FakeHDRDesc.html

[ReverendTed]

Just for comparison, I decided to take another screenshot of the area compared above by Sprawl. This screenshot was taken on my X800 Pro. (The only modification is that I took the shot at 1280x960 and cropped it back to "widescreen" 1280x720. I also usually run the game at 1024x768 - it does get a little choppy at 1280x960, but I'm also throttled by my AMD XP 2500+. I only bumped it up to get a more direct comparison.) I'm re-linking the SM3.0 image again just for easy direct comparison.
I do not claim these are equivalent - there are noticeable differences. There is some aliasing in the reflections, and the heat haze is not present. However, I submit that "doesn't look 100% as awesome" doesn't equate to "not worth the effort of supporting", especially given my prior argument about performance on cards like the GeForce 6600.

SM2.0b:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1592/planecrash08wlj6.jpg

SM3.0 (DX9 Mode):
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6751/sm3dx9shot2as1.jpg

[damicatz]

So 2K should waste resources writing an entire seperate code path for what equates to less than 1% of the total amount of Bioshock Sales. (Which will easily number in the millions). Or perhaps some people should just upgrade.

Just for comparison, I decided to take another screenshot of the area compared above by Sprawl. This screenshot was taken on my X800 Pro. (The only modification is that I took the shot at 1280x960 and cropped it back to "widescreen" 1280x720. I also usually run the game at 1024x768 - it does get a little choppy at 1280x960, but I'm also throttled by my AMD XP 2500+. I only bumped it up to get a more direct comparison.) I'm re-linking the SM3.0 image again just for easy direct comparison.
I do not claim these are equivalent - there are noticeable differences. There is some aliasing in the reflections, and the heat haze is not present. However, I submit that "doesn't look 100% as awesome" doesn't equate to "not worth the effort of supporting", especially given my prior argument about performance on cards like the GeForce 6600.

SM2.0b:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1592/planecrash08wlj6.jpg

SM3.0 (DX9 Mode):
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6751/sm3dx9shot2as1.jpg

[ReverendTed]

So 2K should waste resources writing an entire seperate code path for what equates to less than 1% of the total amount of Bioshock Sales. (Which will easily number in the millions). Or perhaps some people should just upgrade.My personal opinion is that Irrational\2K made their decision based on the information they had available, and it's entirely up to them whether or not they decide to extend support in the future.
I firmly believe that they decided that the return on investment (of time, effort, and money) needed to support SM2.0 did not justify the expenditure, and that's their prerogative.
(Also, it's not an entirely different code path - there are plenty of conditionals in the shader code for Xbox vs DX9 vs DX10 and nVidia-specific optimizations, but the bulk of the code carries across platforms, including the SM2.0-compatible code that we're currently using.)

I'm only posting the comparison shots in response to those bitter individuals who insist that the X800 is a vastly inferior piece of hardware. It's an ideological and essentially academic argument, being that it's against foes that I am firmly convinced will not be any more swayed by reason than they would by angry irrational ranting. (And there's plenty of both on either side of the argument.)

The fact of the matter is - the X800 is still a perfectly-viable piece of graphics hardware for any developer that chooses to support it. That the Bioshock developers have chosen not to extend that support does not change that fact. Eventually, SM2.0 support will NOT be the norm, but currently, it is. Bioshock is (again, at the present time) an exception, and an exception by developer choice, not by developer necessity.
That's the point I'm trying to make.

[rev1]

saw this comparison posted before in here

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=129071&postcount=41

SM2
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3193/after1vt3.jpg

SM3
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6751/sm3dx9shot2as1.jpg

i can see a big diffrence here

[damicatz]

The Xbox 360 supports floating-point blending operations. Every Shader Model 3 card (with the exception of the 6200) supports floating-point blending operations. Bioshock's entire lighting system is based around the use of floating-point blends.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how good the game looks or how fast it runs. And it has absolutely nothing to do with how fast or slow the X800 runs OTHER games. The point is, Irrational made a decision to require SM 3.0 because the use of floating-point blends automatically means that the code wouldn't work on any SM 2.0 cards anyways. One more time. The Radeon X800 series do not support floating-point blending operations. Again. The Radeon X800 series DO NOT SUPPORT FLOATING-POINT BLENDING OPERATIONS. The XBox 360's Xenon Graphics Chip does. Every SM 3.0 card (with the exception of 6200) does. So there is no point in making a SM 2.0 codebase when there is not a single SM 2.0 card on the market that supports the ability to handle Bioshock's lighting system, especially since you can do everything you can do in SM 2.0 in SM 3.0 and at a much faster speed.

The SM 2.0 patch is irrelevant. That patch is written by a hobbyist who is doing it in his spare time. It is a far cry from actually going through the trouble of writing in a SM 2.0 codepath that can coexist along with the SM 3.0 codepath and then providing support for it. If anything, Radeon X800 owners should be thanking 2K Games and Irrational for leaving the game's shader code uncompiled and openly editable. Most games compile their shader code and that would have made a SM 2.0 patch much more difficult if not impossible.

My personal opinion is that Irrational\2K made their decision based on the information they had available, and it's entirely up to them whether or not they decide to extend support in the future.
I firmly believe that they decided that the return on investment (of time, effort, and money) needed to support SM2.0 did not justify the expenditure, and that's their prerogative.
(Also, it's not an entirely different code path - there are plenty of conditionals in the shader code for Xbox vs DX9 vs DX10 and nVidia-specific optimizations, but the bulk of the code carries across platforms, including the SM2.0-compatible code that we're currently using.)

I'm only posting the comparison shots in response to those bitter individuals who insist that the X800 is a vastly inferior piece of hardware. It's an ideological and essentially academic argument, being that it's against foes that I am firmly convinced will not be any more swayed by reason than they would by angry irrational ranting. (And there's plenty of both on either side of the argument.)

The fact of the matter is - the X800 is still a perfectly-viable piece of graphics hardware for any developer that chooses to support it. That the Bioshock developers have chosen not to extend that support does not change that fact. Eventually, SM2.0 support will NOT be the norm, but currently, it is. Bioshock is (again, at the present time) an exception, and an exception by developer choice, not by developer necessity.
That's the point I'm trying to make.

[ReverendTed]

i can see a big diffrence hereCheck my post back one page. There's still a noticeable difference, but it's not quite as striking as that comparison.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how good the game looks or how fast it runs. The rest of your argument notwithstanding...are you really going to attempt to make this claim? How is that not the entire point?

From my perspective, the floating-point blends issue is a non-issue in the context of this discussion. (Though that may be because you and I are having different discussions.)
If Bioshock required floating point blends, which SM2.0 cards do not support, then the game wouldn't run on SM2.0 cards - but it does.
Your statement implies that the code simply won't run on SM2.0 cards, but something's drawing Rapture onto my monitor - you're going to have to clarify what you mean with that statement from a practical standpoint.

Here are the arguments that I think you're making:
1) In order to fully support SM2.0 cards, Irrational would have to create a new code path that does not incorporate floating point blending, at great expense and with little payoff for the effort.
-What Irrational should do or not do isn't a factor in the argument I'm making. They made their decision, and that's their business. I don't expect them to do anything.

2) The game cannot be rendered with all features, lighting and effects 100% intact without floating point blending.
- So? If it looks good and runs fast, who cares what fraction of the effects aren't exactly as they appear on their native SM3.0 platform?

And yes, it was very fortunate for the SM2.0 crowd that the devs decided, out of generosity or for whatever reason, to leave the shader code exposed.

[damicatz]

The game runs without FP blends because the FP blends are done in the shader code and the patch replaces that shader code. There is a hell of a lot of difference between doing something in an unofficial patch as a hobbyist and doing something as a business.

The patch basically guts the original shader code and replaces it with SM 2.0 code that uses a severely watered down lighting model and has a limited amount of effects. It replaces it, it does not complement it. There is but a single shader path for the PC version of Bioshock out of the box.

To add in support for SM 2.0 cards would basically double the amount of rendering paths available. It would require additional code to allow the user to toggle between the two (if supported), it would make tracking down graphics related bugs harder (does this problem affect only one path or both paths), and it would place more burden on an already overtaxed support staff because they'd have to worry about which render path a user is using when they ask for technical support. In addition, any future updates to the game as far as new graphics go (DLC plasmids with new effects) because 2K would now have to write code for both paths.

From a business perspective, it is simply not worth the cost to spend that much work on supporting what will probably equate to less than 1% of the total PC sales of Bioshock.

Check my post back one page. There's still a noticeable difference, but it's not quite as striking as that comparison.

The rest of your argument notwithstanding...are you really going to attempt to make this claim? How is that not the entire point?

From my perspective, the floating-point blends issue is a non-issue in the context of this discussion. (Though that may be because you and I are having different discussions.)
If Bioshock required floating point blends, which SM2.0 cards do not support, then the game wouldn't run on SM2.0 cards - but it does.
Your statement implies that the code simply won't run on SM2.0 cards, but something's drawing Rapture onto my monitor - you're going to have to clarify what you mean with that statement from a practical standpoint.

Here are the arguments that I think you're making:
1) In order to fully support SM2.0 cards, Irrational would have to create a new code path that does not incorporate floating point blending, at great expense and with little payoff for the effort.
-What Irrational should do or not do isn't a factor in the argument I'm making. They made their decision, and that's their business. I don't expect them to do anything.

2) The game cannot be rendered with all features, lighting and effects 100% intact without floating point blending.
- So? If it looks good and runs fast, who cares what fraction of the effects aren't exactly as they appear on their native SM3.0 platform?

And yes, it was very fortunate for the SM2.0 crowd that the devs decided, out of generosity or for whatever reason, to leave the shader code exposed.

[damicatz]

Meant to say one and a half shader paths. A few shaders are written using SM 4.0 when running in DirectX 10 mode but the majority of the shader code is still SM 3.0, even when running in DirectX 10 mode.

An edit feature on these forums would be nice and enabling it just takes a single click of a button.

The game runs without FP blends because the FP blends are done in the shader code and the patch replaces that shader code. There is a hell of a lot of difference between doing something in an unofficial patch as a hobbyist and doing something as a business.

The patch basically guts the original shader code and replaces it with SM 2.0 code that uses a severely watered down lighting model and has a limited amount of effects. It replaces it, it does not complement it. There is but a single shader path for the PC version of Bioshock out of the box.

To add in support for SM 2.0 cards would basically double the amount of rendering paths available. It would require additional code to allow the user to toggle between the two (if supported), it would make tracking down graphics related bugs harder (does this problem affect only one path or both paths), and it would place more burden on an already overtaxed support staff because they'd have to worry about which render path a user is using when they ask for technical support. In addition, any future updates to the game as far as new graphics go (DLC plasmids with new effects) because 2K would now have to write code for both paths.

From a business perspective, it is simply not worth the cost to spend that much work on supporting what will probably equate to less than 1% of the total PC sales of Bioshock.

[anexsia]

I may be wrong, but even the Crysis MP Beta requires SM 3.0 according to the official README, and other players. Where was everyone getting their facts about later games like Crysis supporting SM 2.0?

[Septic]

Possibly here (http://www.crysis-online.com/Information/System%20Requirements/)

[Viz79]

Crysis devs have said in numerous interviews 2.0 is supported - same with UT3. It just leaves THIS game with this problem. Anyway:

7172 Total Signatures

Problem not going to go away regardless.

[Sprawl]

again;.

Stop calling it a "PROBLEM" viz. it's not a problem. nor a bug, nor a failure of coding. it was a purposefull business omission.

it's only a problem to those SM2 cards that are still left, and the number is dwindling.

stop blaming 2k for this and stop expecting it to be treated as a bug by them.


I give mad props for the hobbyist group who's actually done the SM2 patches to get this working. it's great to see that 2k left the code open enough that modification is possible. What that also means is that more of this game maybe modified i hope!

However, there are noticable differences in both screenshots. SM2 is clearly unable to handle the higher end graphical requirements. the game is absolutely playable without them, but it was 2k's perogative to say enough already, and continue to program the game in the environment they deemed would give them the best graphical options.

I'm all for the continued modification to enable SM2. BUT STOP BLAMING 2K and telling them they've got problems and that they're some evil company for expecting you to have a modern card

[Cyfiverr]

everyone keeps saying that it says nothing about the Shader model

however it does. Direct X 9.0c is a clear requiremnt. And as part of the Direct X 9.0c standard, a card has to have SM3

however to a non techie, you might not know that.

But it's not fair to say that its not there. X800 series cards are only Direct X 9.0b compliant

the best part is when he said.. "however to a non techie, you might not know that."

L2 Use a Computer. GG

-Cy

[ReverendTed]

From a business perspective, it is simply not worth the cost to spend that much work on supporting what will probably equate to less than 1% of the total PC sales of Bioshock.If I understand correctly, this is the basic premise your response. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with Irrational or 2K's decision (or obligation) to support or not support SM2.0.

You also described some features of the patch. For the record, I'm one of the people working on it. My contributions have been largely organizational - most of the major (and incremental) developments have been made by a handful of other individuals with more practical coding experience - but I've been through the shader code, and I've traced the Vertex Shader and Pixel Shader pathways for a number of the shaders. (With particular interest in LayerLighting, AmbientLighting, and Particle.) I know where (and roughly how, though in many cases not necessarily why) the code is modified for DX10 and Xbox optimizations. I know how pervasive conditional Nvidia-specific optimizations are.
I also know what sections of the code are skipped or modified for the various flavors of SM2.0 patches.

I've allowed you to call the floating-point card unopposed because honestly, it's something I'm not familiar with, but your description of the patch seems (from my limited understanding anyway) to be woefully inaccurate.
The floating-point blends issue may be a problem, but from our experience the biggest issues appear to be related to limits on consecutive instructions (and to a lesser degree constant registers) imposed by each of the various Vertex and Shader models. There are a couple of SM3.0-specific commands here and there (tex2Dlod, texCUBElod - lod-based functions we're substituting with bias) and there may be a few issues with arbitrary swizzling and dynamic flow control that are proving to be rather troublesome to track down, but those are two topics that others understand a lot better than I do.

[ReverendTed]

An edit feature on these forums would be nice and enabling it just takes a single click of a button.Just do it rihgt the first time!


;)

[ThunderBuns]

People just need to upgrade their computers...or this will be one of the last games yours can support...

[damicatz]

Possibly here (http://www.crysis-online.com/Information/System%20Requirements/)

Minimum Requirements : NVIDIA 6600 or ATI X1600. Doesn't look like it will run on that X800.

[Septic]

From the link:

A graphics card that supports Shader Model 2 or higher is required.

Minimum Requirements:
CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600 or ATI X1600 - Shader Model 2.0
RAM: 1GB
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9 with Windows XP / Vista

[ReverendTed]

Also from that page:Once again, these are estimates only and are no way official.
Take from this what you will:CryEngine2 is estimated to scale back 2 years, and scale ahead 1.5 years.

[damicatz]

From the link:

A graphics card that supports Shader Model 2 or higher is required.

Minimum Requirements:
CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600 or ATI X1600 - Shader Model 2.0
RAM: 1GB
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9 with Windows XP / Vista

Graphics : Nvidia 6600 or ATI X1600. X1600 > X800. Doesn't matter what the speed is because the minimum requirements always treat higher models as better. And it doesn't matter that it says Shader Model 2.0 is required because it says you must have at least a Radeon X1600. Even though the game might have an SM 2.0 path, chances are it uses floating point blending operations which again aren't supported by the X800 series Radeons.