Ruccus
12-24-05, 01:39 PM
There's a bit of an unsavoury (ie trolling) post in the official forums questioning the legitimacy of the screenshots on Vanguard's screenshots page (http://www.vanguardsagaofheroes.com/screenshots.php), but in putting that to rest Brad made a few comments that might help Safehousers to plan ahead for the best Vanguard gaming experience:
The screens are absolutely real. They have all options turned on and the more recent ones were taken by my art director so they're set up really nice, but they are very real and very much the game. Also the most recent couple of batches on our site and sent to affiliate sites have the latest in HDR, tone mapping, and world lighting turned on, whereas some of the links to older shots (e.g. the ones from Woody's site) do not have these options on (most of them weren't coded yet).
Not only that, but I can get between 15 and 30fps at that quality at 1920x1200 on a high end machine right now, and do every night when I play, and we're not even totally optimized. I am using a 3.8ghz pentium and an ATI 1800XT and fully admit that's a high-end machine that's relatively costly (though those screenshots were using 850XTs and 1800XLs depending on the date). But the card, cpu, etc. really only determines the framerate in this case, not the quality of the image. You can get that quality of an image on any shader 2.0 card (the x1800s are shader 3.0 but we're not using any 3.0 instructions as of yet). E.g. the game looks that good on a 9800XT, although currently with optimizaitons not done and all of those options on, I think most wouldn't find the game enjoyable at that rez on a lower end system with a much slower shader 2.0 card.
That said, there are many people in beta playing at lower resolutions (1280x1024, etc.) and without HDR/worldlighting on 9800s, 6800s, etc. and on 2.8ghz or so systems and playing just fine. Lastly, based on what both ATI and Nvidia are saying, cards that perform like x1800s (or even faster) will be in the under $150 dollar range by the middle of next year.
Looking at the screenshots we've released, they've continued to look better and better as we finalize the engine for release (although we'll keep updating after release). So the opposite of what you assert is going to occur -- the screenshots are going to look better in the future as we approach release, not worse. One big example is, there are still no environmental shadows. Also, there is no anti-aliasing on in those recent shots (when we put in HDR, we had to turn anti-aliasing off, although the x1800 series allows you to do both now, and I would expect to see both once it makes sense for Ryan to write the code to utilize this new tech).
Anyway, I hate to be a defensive guy, but you pretty much are accusing us of lying here.... and I'm not going to stand for it.
to be super clear here:
I am saying that:
1. TODAY, to run the beta in its current not totally optimized beta 2 form at 1920x1200 with all graphical options turned on you need a high end machine such as I've descrbed (e.g. a 3.2 ghz, 1-2 gigs of ram, and a x1800 or 9800gt card).
2. By launch, and likely before, you will be able to run in that rez with a lower end machine because:
a. The client will be more optimized.
b. Systems of similar or higher power will be cheaper.
i. This includes CPUs, RAM, and especially graphics cards
ii. In particular cards as powerful or more powerful than, say, the current line of ATI X1800 cards will be available by launch in the $120 range -- quite a $$ difference.
3. TODAY, you can run the game in graphics modes and resolutions in beta 2, in its unoptimized form, on MUCH lower end machines.
a. For example, people are running at decent resolutions and at lower graphics settings (but still quite pretty) on 2.8ghz machines, with 1 gig of RAM, and ati 9800 cards/nvidia 6600s, etc.
b. Our optimizations will be general, but specifically of note is that 512 megs will run the game in lower settings by launch or before (whereas now you really need more like 1 gig).
In general this is why I don't like talking about system specs until very near launch. People asked me what sort of system make the most recent 6 screenshots we've put on our official site as well as more recent shots (world lighting, HDR, etc. ON) sent to affiliate sites and if the game was playable at that rez and at those settings. I was up front and told you guys what sort of system I am using to play at 1920x1200 with all the options on and at a playable framerate (and the systems I use are actually even more powerful than is currently necessary to run at those settings).
To emphasize, as per above in this post, this is marginally useful information at best today (other than to make the point I was trying to make, which was that 1. the screenshots are real, not fake and 2. yes, even today, it is very possible to play the game at that rez and at those settings, albeit expensive) because:
1. the game will be much more optimized by launch
2. systems like the one I am using will be MUCH cheaper by launch if you desire to run at a very high rez like this and with all the options on.
3. systems that will run the game at lower resolutions and with less options turned on will be that much cheaper by launch.
4. Specifically, what is a high-end graphics card today (an x1800 or a 7800gt, for some examples) will, by launch, and likely before, have been replaced by newer cards.
a. Cards that are as fast or faster than these high end cards of today will be around launch time in the $100-$150 range.
b. Cards that completely smoke an x1800 or 9800gt will likely be available too in that time frame. These will be the high end cards of that time period. My guess is that if someone wanted to build a high end machine in mid-2006 or so that they could get killer framerate in Vanguard running at 2560 x 1600 (the native resolution of the future 30" widescreen Dell monitor available in Jan 2006).
Summary:
1. Assuming you are not in beta, you have little to worry about performance-wise with Vanguard. While the engine and spec is obviously higher-focused than, say, WoW, that does not mean it will require an expensive high-end machine to run.
2. When designing an MMOG, you have to think about lower end machines being able to run your game for sales reasons and you also have to think about making your engine flexible the other way, being able to take advantage of future hardware either automatically or by patching in the future. We are doing both and this has been on our minds since day one.
3. Some people in beta are struggling a bit if they have lower end machines and want to play at high resolutions and/or with all the graphics settings set to high. Those who cannot afford to uprade their systems are therefore setting resolutions and graphics settings down as well as enjoying each new beta patch which includes continued optimizations as well as more graphics settings options. This is simply how it is when beta testing an MMOG like Vanguard. An analagous situation would be EQ beta: some people struggled to get systems to run EQ beta, including a Voodoo 1 (pretty new stuff at the time). But by the time we launched, Voodoo 1s were not only very affordable, as well as machines in general that ran EQ just fine, but Voodoo 2s (and Voodoo SLI) were already out.
4. On a side note, as mentioned in earlier posts, Vanguard will even get better looking because we aren't yet even taking advantage of the ability of newer cards to use HDR and anti-aliasing at the same time, shader 3.0, SLI and Crossfire, etc.
If anyone still has any concerns about the above or questions or I'm not being clear, please don't hesitate to post.
thanks :)
Please read my longer and recent post I just made, but really quick:
1. You won't need a high end machine to run Vanguard.
2. You won't even need a super high end machine to run Vanguard at crazy high resolutions and with all graphics options turned on.
3. 1 & 2 are true because of how quickly CPUs, RAM, and graphics cards both get quicker and cheaper over a short amount of time. History proves this beyond a doubt.
4. Vanguard is not an 'extremely hard game'. It is a more challenging game than, say, WoW, but it is not a hard core game, nor a raiding game, etc. It is a game that is targeted at the core gamer. It is a group focused game. But it will also have content for solo/small groups (as well as raid groups on the other end of the spectrum).
5. Challenge does not have to mean tedious -- we've done our best at removing tedium but retaining that which makes a game more challenging and therefore more rewarding for a significant segment of the MMOG gamer demographic.
6. Vanguard is not being designed, nor was it ever the plan, to be a 'niche' game. While it is unlikely (though possible, who knows?) that it (or any other MMOG for quite some time) will dethrone WoW for a variety of reasons, each of which could be taked about and debated in their own thread, and a long thread at that (and has already been debated in the past), this does not make the game niche. A conservative guess at 300-500K subscribers with a high retention (low churn) rate is a very reasonable projection for Vanguard given its design and therefore its target audience. Such numbers would place it up there with the top 2-3 MMOGs of all time (EQ, FFXI, etc.) in terms of subscribers.
Summary:
1. Please read my numerous posts of the past about what I mean by challenging, who our target audience is, what a 'core' gamer is when we use that term, etc.
2. Also note that I am very confident that the average 'core gamer's' machine that he or she will own when Vanguard is released will run Vanguard very well. These will also be machines that the average core gamer will want not just for Vanguard, but for other 2006 FPS games and the like.
3. People with machines lower end than the average gamer's machine will still be able to run Vanguard fine, just likely not at the highest resolutions and with all graphics settings on. Just like, say, a lower end machine had to be adjusted down to play Doom 3 or Half Life 2 when they came out. This is quite the norm.
4. Because the engine is also being architected to take advantage of future tech, those people with crazy high end machines will likely be able to do some really cool stuff with Vanguard at launch that isn't even possible today.
So the average 'core' gamer is covered and will be running Vanguard at high settings and high resolutions and at good framerates. The person with a lower end machine will also be running Vanguard, albeit with some options turned down or off and likely also at lower resolutions. And then then person who can afford what will be a high-end machine at the time of launch will likely also be rewarded as well because for engine/tech longevity (e.g. to make sure Vanguard still looks good 1-2-3 years after launch) we will have architected a system and set of options planning for that future that he or she may be able to take advantage of even earlier.
This, as a side note, is one of the cool things about MMOGs -- while for games with a shorter expected lifespan (say, an FPS or RTS0, it is not usually worth the effort to make the game engine take advantage of the latest tech available (because only a small segment of the target audience has that spec of machine), MMOGs on the other hand can often immedately reward the game with the hard-core machine because the engine has to be architected to take advantage of his machine because it will be the 'norm' machine 1-2 years after launch. Hardware, even as it relates to gaming, is almost always quite a bit ahead of software. For example, the cards that just recently came out (x1800 and 9800gt(x)) support shader model 3.0. How many games today even really require or take full advantage of shader model 2.0? This is often frustrating for the card manufacturers because they are from one standpoint being pressured to push the envelope when competing against each other, but then other than some demos, no software tends to really take advantage of their cards for sometimes up to 1-2 years after release of said hardware. This is why, for example, companies like ATI and Nvidia really like supporting MMOGs... whereas in the past it was often FPS games and the like that could be used as 'poster childs' for thier hardware, recently this has been shifting towards MMOGs. For example, say when an ATI rep gets a demo of Vanguard and realizes it pushes their hardware from all aspects (tech level, speed, fill rate, etc) like no other game out there by several times, they usually leave the office quite giddy :)
So for Vanguard it's a win(low-end)-win(core gamer)-win(high end tech-file).
Just a quick note: even unoptimized and in beta 2, and with everything set to full and at the highest rez, the game runs in 256 megs. I get no advantage at all having a 512 meg x1800xt other than, being a tech-nerd I can point at the hardware and declare it 'l33t'.
You'll need 128-256 meg cards for Vanguard. With everything turned down you may be able to run with a 64 meg card, but that's not a known at this time.
That said, by launch there may be some crazy setting that will take advantage of 512 -- I really don't know. Like I said, there is currently nothing that I can do even at the highest settings to use more than 256.
If we have time, as I've talked about before, hopefully we'll have a 64 bit client running on xp 64 or Vista 64, where I can load up, say, all of thestra into system and GPU ram at once, push the clipping plane (visibility) to 20km+ or something, and then I might need 512 to fully do this. We do have to prepare for 64 bit operating systems and the additional speed they offer, so we may as well take advantage of the greater than 3 gigs they can address as well, and prepare in advance for what Vanguard will be able to do, say, a year after launch. For us, this is simply long term planning to make sure the game still looks good years after release. For the user, however, it doesn't mean much unless you are an affluent technofile, in which case VG will probably be one of the few games that will actually use your uber-machine, giving you something to do with it other than just post your 3dmark benchmark results :)
I agree but one thing to keep in mind is that the installed hardware based usually lags far behind the current high-end. Even today only a minority of gamers have X800/6800 level video card. Most are still at 9800 level or the current middle-ground (nvidia 6600). Ditto with CPUs - most people are in the 2.4 - 3.0 GHz range.
A year from now the average will prolly move up a notch, so the "average" gamer hardware will prolly look something like 1GB RAM, a video card with X800/6800-like performance and a CPU around 3.0 GHz.
I don't know what data you are using, but it seems a little conservative (maybe your 'average' doesn't match our 'core' -- these studies can be done so many ways.). Our data shows that in 6-9 months he will have the 1gb ram, a cpu around 3.0, but a video card that smokes an x800/6800 (the latter being because the rate of tech in GPUs is much faster than cpus, ram, etc. right now). Like I said, a card that smokes an x1800 will likely be in the $100-$150 range by mid-2006.
In any case, even if he did have something more like an x800, he's be perfectly ready to enjoy Vanguard. A 3.0ghz machine with 1 gig of ram and an x800 runs the beta (read: unoptimized and unfinished) client right now just fine, and so would be that much more effective at running the release client.
Cliff notes as I read them:
Graphics card: Wait until closer to Vanguard release before you buy
I'm also reading that reasonable specs for the beta are roughly a 3Ghz processor (or '3000+' AMD processor), 1GB of system memory, and Radeon X800 or GeForce 6800, though you should be able to have a reasonable gaming experience with Radeon 9800/GeForce 6600 class cards. Please note that there's a difference between having one of those cards right now and deciding to upgrade to one of those cards in the future. The closer you wait until Vanguard's release, the better the card you'll get for a set amount of money.
One thing to note is that environmental shadows have not been enabled yet. That means while the characters do cast shadows, trees, buildings, etc. don't yet cast shadows. Here's (http://www.vanguardsagaofheroes.com/screenshots/qaliadesert2_800.jpg) an example of what I mean; the character is casting a shadow, but the environment (the tower on the hill and the building on the right) behind her isn't. Environmental shadows have historically caused a decent framerate hit, which is part of the reason they're not enabled (Brad had mentioned newer techonogies that would allow environmental shadows to have less of a performance hit, so that will be one of the last things added to the Vanguard engine), but they're also the first thing I'd suggest turing off (in any game) if framerates are problematic (gives you a slightly less realistic environment, but shadows make everything darker so there are advantages to running without shadows).
Remember for technical computer questions/problems, feel free to post them in The Safehouse Workshop (http://www.thesafehouse.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
The screens are absolutely real. They have all options turned on and the more recent ones were taken by my art director so they're set up really nice, but they are very real and very much the game. Also the most recent couple of batches on our site and sent to affiliate sites have the latest in HDR, tone mapping, and world lighting turned on, whereas some of the links to older shots (e.g. the ones from Woody's site) do not have these options on (most of them weren't coded yet).
Not only that, but I can get between 15 and 30fps at that quality at 1920x1200 on a high end machine right now, and do every night when I play, and we're not even totally optimized. I am using a 3.8ghz pentium and an ATI 1800XT and fully admit that's a high-end machine that's relatively costly (though those screenshots were using 850XTs and 1800XLs depending on the date). But the card, cpu, etc. really only determines the framerate in this case, not the quality of the image. You can get that quality of an image on any shader 2.0 card (the x1800s are shader 3.0 but we're not using any 3.0 instructions as of yet). E.g. the game looks that good on a 9800XT, although currently with optimizaitons not done and all of those options on, I think most wouldn't find the game enjoyable at that rez on a lower end system with a much slower shader 2.0 card.
That said, there are many people in beta playing at lower resolutions (1280x1024, etc.) and without HDR/worldlighting on 9800s, 6800s, etc. and on 2.8ghz or so systems and playing just fine. Lastly, based on what both ATI and Nvidia are saying, cards that perform like x1800s (or even faster) will be in the under $150 dollar range by the middle of next year.
Looking at the screenshots we've released, they've continued to look better and better as we finalize the engine for release (although we'll keep updating after release). So the opposite of what you assert is going to occur -- the screenshots are going to look better in the future as we approach release, not worse. One big example is, there are still no environmental shadows. Also, there is no anti-aliasing on in those recent shots (when we put in HDR, we had to turn anti-aliasing off, although the x1800 series allows you to do both now, and I would expect to see both once it makes sense for Ryan to write the code to utilize this new tech).
Anyway, I hate to be a defensive guy, but you pretty much are accusing us of lying here.... and I'm not going to stand for it.
to be super clear here:
I am saying that:
1. TODAY, to run the beta in its current not totally optimized beta 2 form at 1920x1200 with all graphical options turned on you need a high end machine such as I've descrbed (e.g. a 3.2 ghz, 1-2 gigs of ram, and a x1800 or 9800gt card).
2. By launch, and likely before, you will be able to run in that rez with a lower end machine because:
a. The client will be more optimized.
b. Systems of similar or higher power will be cheaper.
i. This includes CPUs, RAM, and especially graphics cards
ii. In particular cards as powerful or more powerful than, say, the current line of ATI X1800 cards will be available by launch in the $120 range -- quite a $$ difference.
3. TODAY, you can run the game in graphics modes and resolutions in beta 2, in its unoptimized form, on MUCH lower end machines.
a. For example, people are running at decent resolutions and at lower graphics settings (but still quite pretty) on 2.8ghz machines, with 1 gig of RAM, and ati 9800 cards/nvidia 6600s, etc.
b. Our optimizations will be general, but specifically of note is that 512 megs will run the game in lower settings by launch or before (whereas now you really need more like 1 gig).
In general this is why I don't like talking about system specs until very near launch. People asked me what sort of system make the most recent 6 screenshots we've put on our official site as well as more recent shots (world lighting, HDR, etc. ON) sent to affiliate sites and if the game was playable at that rez and at those settings. I was up front and told you guys what sort of system I am using to play at 1920x1200 with all the options on and at a playable framerate (and the systems I use are actually even more powerful than is currently necessary to run at those settings).
To emphasize, as per above in this post, this is marginally useful information at best today (other than to make the point I was trying to make, which was that 1. the screenshots are real, not fake and 2. yes, even today, it is very possible to play the game at that rez and at those settings, albeit expensive) because:
1. the game will be much more optimized by launch
2. systems like the one I am using will be MUCH cheaper by launch if you desire to run at a very high rez like this and with all the options on.
3. systems that will run the game at lower resolutions and with less options turned on will be that much cheaper by launch.
4. Specifically, what is a high-end graphics card today (an x1800 or a 7800gt, for some examples) will, by launch, and likely before, have been replaced by newer cards.
a. Cards that are as fast or faster than these high end cards of today will be around launch time in the $100-$150 range.
b. Cards that completely smoke an x1800 or 9800gt will likely be available too in that time frame. These will be the high end cards of that time period. My guess is that if someone wanted to build a high end machine in mid-2006 or so that they could get killer framerate in Vanguard running at 2560 x 1600 (the native resolution of the future 30" widescreen Dell monitor available in Jan 2006).
Summary:
1. Assuming you are not in beta, you have little to worry about performance-wise with Vanguard. While the engine and spec is obviously higher-focused than, say, WoW, that does not mean it will require an expensive high-end machine to run.
2. When designing an MMOG, you have to think about lower end machines being able to run your game for sales reasons and you also have to think about making your engine flexible the other way, being able to take advantage of future hardware either automatically or by patching in the future. We are doing both and this has been on our minds since day one.
3. Some people in beta are struggling a bit if they have lower end machines and want to play at high resolutions and/or with all the graphics settings set to high. Those who cannot afford to uprade their systems are therefore setting resolutions and graphics settings down as well as enjoying each new beta patch which includes continued optimizations as well as more graphics settings options. This is simply how it is when beta testing an MMOG like Vanguard. An analagous situation would be EQ beta: some people struggled to get systems to run EQ beta, including a Voodoo 1 (pretty new stuff at the time). But by the time we launched, Voodoo 1s were not only very affordable, as well as machines in general that ran EQ just fine, but Voodoo 2s (and Voodoo SLI) were already out.
4. On a side note, as mentioned in earlier posts, Vanguard will even get better looking because we aren't yet even taking advantage of the ability of newer cards to use HDR and anti-aliasing at the same time, shader 3.0, SLI and Crossfire, etc.
If anyone still has any concerns about the above or questions or I'm not being clear, please don't hesitate to post.
thanks :)
Please read my longer and recent post I just made, but really quick:
1. You won't need a high end machine to run Vanguard.
2. You won't even need a super high end machine to run Vanguard at crazy high resolutions and with all graphics options turned on.
3. 1 & 2 are true because of how quickly CPUs, RAM, and graphics cards both get quicker and cheaper over a short amount of time. History proves this beyond a doubt.
4. Vanguard is not an 'extremely hard game'. It is a more challenging game than, say, WoW, but it is not a hard core game, nor a raiding game, etc. It is a game that is targeted at the core gamer. It is a group focused game. But it will also have content for solo/small groups (as well as raid groups on the other end of the spectrum).
5. Challenge does not have to mean tedious -- we've done our best at removing tedium but retaining that which makes a game more challenging and therefore more rewarding for a significant segment of the MMOG gamer demographic.
6. Vanguard is not being designed, nor was it ever the plan, to be a 'niche' game. While it is unlikely (though possible, who knows?) that it (or any other MMOG for quite some time) will dethrone WoW for a variety of reasons, each of which could be taked about and debated in their own thread, and a long thread at that (and has already been debated in the past), this does not make the game niche. A conservative guess at 300-500K subscribers with a high retention (low churn) rate is a very reasonable projection for Vanguard given its design and therefore its target audience. Such numbers would place it up there with the top 2-3 MMOGs of all time (EQ, FFXI, etc.) in terms of subscribers.
Summary:
1. Please read my numerous posts of the past about what I mean by challenging, who our target audience is, what a 'core' gamer is when we use that term, etc.
2. Also note that I am very confident that the average 'core gamer's' machine that he or she will own when Vanguard is released will run Vanguard very well. These will also be machines that the average core gamer will want not just for Vanguard, but for other 2006 FPS games and the like.
3. People with machines lower end than the average gamer's machine will still be able to run Vanguard fine, just likely not at the highest resolutions and with all graphics settings on. Just like, say, a lower end machine had to be adjusted down to play Doom 3 or Half Life 2 when they came out. This is quite the norm.
4. Because the engine is also being architected to take advantage of future tech, those people with crazy high end machines will likely be able to do some really cool stuff with Vanguard at launch that isn't even possible today.
So the average 'core' gamer is covered and will be running Vanguard at high settings and high resolutions and at good framerates. The person with a lower end machine will also be running Vanguard, albeit with some options turned down or off and likely also at lower resolutions. And then then person who can afford what will be a high-end machine at the time of launch will likely also be rewarded as well because for engine/tech longevity (e.g. to make sure Vanguard still looks good 1-2-3 years after launch) we will have architected a system and set of options planning for that future that he or she may be able to take advantage of even earlier.
This, as a side note, is one of the cool things about MMOGs -- while for games with a shorter expected lifespan (say, an FPS or RTS0, it is not usually worth the effort to make the game engine take advantage of the latest tech available (because only a small segment of the target audience has that spec of machine), MMOGs on the other hand can often immedately reward the game with the hard-core machine because the engine has to be architected to take advantage of his machine because it will be the 'norm' machine 1-2 years after launch. Hardware, even as it relates to gaming, is almost always quite a bit ahead of software. For example, the cards that just recently came out (x1800 and 9800gt(x)) support shader model 3.0. How many games today even really require or take full advantage of shader model 2.0? This is often frustrating for the card manufacturers because they are from one standpoint being pressured to push the envelope when competing against each other, but then other than some demos, no software tends to really take advantage of their cards for sometimes up to 1-2 years after release of said hardware. This is why, for example, companies like ATI and Nvidia really like supporting MMOGs... whereas in the past it was often FPS games and the like that could be used as 'poster childs' for thier hardware, recently this has been shifting towards MMOGs. For example, say when an ATI rep gets a demo of Vanguard and realizes it pushes their hardware from all aspects (tech level, speed, fill rate, etc) like no other game out there by several times, they usually leave the office quite giddy :)
So for Vanguard it's a win(low-end)-win(core gamer)-win(high end tech-file).
Just a quick note: even unoptimized and in beta 2, and with everything set to full and at the highest rez, the game runs in 256 megs. I get no advantage at all having a 512 meg x1800xt other than, being a tech-nerd I can point at the hardware and declare it 'l33t'.
You'll need 128-256 meg cards for Vanguard. With everything turned down you may be able to run with a 64 meg card, but that's not a known at this time.
That said, by launch there may be some crazy setting that will take advantage of 512 -- I really don't know. Like I said, there is currently nothing that I can do even at the highest settings to use more than 256.
If we have time, as I've talked about before, hopefully we'll have a 64 bit client running on xp 64 or Vista 64, where I can load up, say, all of thestra into system and GPU ram at once, push the clipping plane (visibility) to 20km+ or something, and then I might need 512 to fully do this. We do have to prepare for 64 bit operating systems and the additional speed they offer, so we may as well take advantage of the greater than 3 gigs they can address as well, and prepare in advance for what Vanguard will be able to do, say, a year after launch. For us, this is simply long term planning to make sure the game still looks good years after release. For the user, however, it doesn't mean much unless you are an affluent technofile, in which case VG will probably be one of the few games that will actually use your uber-machine, giving you something to do with it other than just post your 3dmark benchmark results :)
I agree but one thing to keep in mind is that the installed hardware based usually lags far behind the current high-end. Even today only a minority of gamers have X800/6800 level video card. Most are still at 9800 level or the current middle-ground (nvidia 6600). Ditto with CPUs - most people are in the 2.4 - 3.0 GHz range.
A year from now the average will prolly move up a notch, so the "average" gamer hardware will prolly look something like 1GB RAM, a video card with X800/6800-like performance and a CPU around 3.0 GHz.
I don't know what data you are using, but it seems a little conservative (maybe your 'average' doesn't match our 'core' -- these studies can be done so many ways.). Our data shows that in 6-9 months he will have the 1gb ram, a cpu around 3.0, but a video card that smokes an x800/6800 (the latter being because the rate of tech in GPUs is much faster than cpus, ram, etc. right now). Like I said, a card that smokes an x1800 will likely be in the $100-$150 range by mid-2006.
In any case, even if he did have something more like an x800, he's be perfectly ready to enjoy Vanguard. A 3.0ghz machine with 1 gig of ram and an x800 runs the beta (read: unoptimized and unfinished) client right now just fine, and so would be that much more effective at running the release client.
Cliff notes as I read them:
Graphics card: Wait until closer to Vanguard release before you buy
I'm also reading that reasonable specs for the beta are roughly a 3Ghz processor (or '3000+' AMD processor), 1GB of system memory, and Radeon X800 or GeForce 6800, though you should be able to have a reasonable gaming experience with Radeon 9800/GeForce 6600 class cards. Please note that there's a difference between having one of those cards right now and deciding to upgrade to one of those cards in the future. The closer you wait until Vanguard's release, the better the card you'll get for a set amount of money.
One thing to note is that environmental shadows have not been enabled yet. That means while the characters do cast shadows, trees, buildings, etc. don't yet cast shadows. Here's (http://www.vanguardsagaofheroes.com/screenshots/qaliadesert2_800.jpg) an example of what I mean; the character is casting a shadow, but the environment (the tower on the hill and the building on the right) behind her isn't. Environmental shadows have historically caused a decent framerate hit, which is part of the reason they're not enabled (Brad had mentioned newer techonogies that would allow environmental shadows to have less of a performance hit, so that will be one of the last things added to the Vanguard engine), but they're also the first thing I'd suggest turing off (in any game) if framerates are problematic (gives you a slightly less realistic environment, but shadows make everything darker so there are advantages to running without shadows).
Remember for technical computer questions/problems, feel free to post them in The Safehouse Workshop (http://www.thesafehouse.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)