Print

[Carlo210]

QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Dec 1 2005, 01:57 AM)

Did everyone forget that the 360 works on a pc monitor?

360: $400
PC CRT monitor: $400
Total: $800

PC: $1000 (if you build it yourself with specs to match what the 360 can do), much more if you buy it built; $2000+ range.
PC CRT monitor: $400
Total: $1400 to $2400+

You definently get more gaming bang for your buck with the 360.
I also agree that there was not that much graphical improvement in 1st gen xbox games, compared to even games that are currently coming out.  The reason for this is because the devs were already extremely familiar with how to program for the xbox.  All it was was a console stuffed with off the shelf pc parts.  So, it was pretty much tapped out on day one.

The 360, as stated, is unfamiliar to devs, and will take some time to fully utilize it.  We can expect to see much difference between 1st gen and later gen games on the 360.  It is completely different this time around, and unfair to compare it to the xbox, deftones, in terms of what we can expect to see from 1st gen to 4th gen games.

I dunno what kind of pc monitors you buy, but I can't see paying 400$ for a pc monitor justifiable 'for me'. I know you get better quality the higher the price gets, but I will be pleased to play on a decent Samsung 17" flat crt for 80$ cdn.
Also, a triple-core pc would be insanely expensive to build. Even a dual-core AMD 64 processor at 3.2ghz is insanely expensive. A pc-gaming amount of 800mhz ram is also expensive, along with a gpu comparable to the Xenon (can get the most comparable card for 600+).

And don't worry about deftones. Gaming is gaming. If I had the money, I'd be fine using a pc for gaming with 2-3 yearly upgrades, but I don't have the cash. Also, the pc gaming industry is on a slope right now. Many of the blockbuster titles on pc's (Quake 4, Half Life 2, Farcry, Elder Scrolls, Call of Duty 2, Doom 3, UT2007, etc) are on the consoles. Pc developers are eager to release their games on consoles due to the cash-benefit. Many (all) of the games being released on PC's that I'd be interested in are coming out on the Xbox 360 and are sure to play smoothly with great graphics.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 09:31 PM)

I used MGS as an example based on a time frame. The xbox also only had a what, a 3.5-4 year shelf life before its next system. So if, like you said All it was was a console stuffed with off the shelf pc parts. So, it was pretty much tapped out on day one. Shouldnt the PS2, being the pain that it was, have some leeway?
Halo
Release Date: Nov 14, 2001
Halo 2
Release Date: Nov 9, 2004
MGS 2
Release Date: Nov 12, 2001
MGS 3
Release Date: Nov 17, 2004

Now do you see why I used the MGS's as an example for the PS2?

If that is not good enough try this one.
SSX Release Date: Oct 30, 2000

SSX On Tour Release Date: Oct 11, 2005

Like I have said, there is a difference, but it is not that big.

I understand why you used mgs as a reference point, as time frame goes, but it was not a first gen game; the devs were resonably familiar with the ps2 hardware by then, whereas halo 1 was first gen for the xbox.

If by leeway, you mean that current ps2 games should look significantly better then its first gen games, then yes, it should.  Compared to xbox current games vs. its 1st gen games, the ps2 improvments is much greater.

Also, not only does screenshots not give a good rep of a games overall picture quality, but EA is one of the least of all devs that push any hardware, performance wise.

I find it also hard to believe that consoles will ever surpass what the pc has to offer graphically.  They may be equal for some time, put the pc always pulls ahead adventually.  But i still believe, due to the multi-core structure of the next gen systems, that the games visual improvents will increase much more as time goes on then the previous last gen systems.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(Carlo210 @ Nov 30 2005, 11:34 PM)

Also, a triple-core pc would be insanely expensive to build. Even a dual-core AMD 64 processor at 3.2ghz is insanely expensive.

People need to understand that the speed in hz is irrelavant...............remember a 1.8Ghz AMD 64 3000 can execute game code more efficiently than a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4.
http://www.firingsqu...otout/page4.asp



Then lets move to multi core. Yup a 2Ghz AMD 64 X2 3800 beats the Pentium D running at 3.2Ghz
http://www.firingsqu...mance/page4.asp

[KAGE360]

i believe the reason that there seems to be more of an improvement for ps2 games is because there was more room for improvement.  just like with the saturn, developers have learned how to work the "hard-to-program" ps2 and fake many effects on the system (real time lighting and normal mapping for example).  

consoles and PCs will always have their benefits and cons, but they will always be able to exist side by side riding on what makes them both great.  i like consoles because i believe it takes more talent and is more impressive when a developer gets to the bare metal of a console and learns new ways to exploit the power of the system other then a pc game where most developers just tack on more powerful hardware to accomplish their goals for whatever games.  even though consoles are rarely ever fully tapped out, i think its such a waste of good power when i think about the bottlenecks and drawbacks that PC games go through just because their played on a PC.  IMHO the main advantages that PC gamers point to with their games are higher resolutions and blazing fast frame rates that arent needed to begin with, but even with those advantages the technology in their PCs still arent being used to its fullest.  i look forward to as a console owner when developers have more and more time with the hardware and learn how to bend the power to reach their dream of what game they are developing, the power is actually being explored and put to use. that is my main appeal to consoles technology wise (not counting ease of use and other benefits), no reason to have so much power if there isnt much potential to it actually being used IMO.

to each their own though as i say, i like both for what their good at and what they do for me.  

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Dec 1 2005, 10:28 AM)

IMHO the main advantages that PC gamers point to with their games are higher resolutions and blazing fast frame rates that arent needed to begin with

What? Higher resolutions are not needed. You are joking right? I don't see why you use a PC monitor on your xbox 360 if higher resolutions are not needed, whats wrong with 480i? Or why do you want to buy an HDTV? Oh yeah, thats right because you want the resolution upgrade because it does make a world of difference. And yeah fast frame rates do matter. My main gripe with Forza was that its runs at 30fps in which never gives you the feeling of going fast............

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Dec 1 2005, 10:39 AM)

What? Higher resolutions are not needed. You are joking right? I don't see why you use a PC monitor on your xbox 360 if higher resolutions are not needed, whats wrong with 480i? Or why do you want to buy an HDTV? Oh yeah, thats right because you want the resolution upgrade because it does make a world of difference. And yeah fast frame rates do matter. My main gripe with Forza was that its runs at 30fps in which never gives you the feeling of going fast............

i worded that wrong, higher resolutions are always a plus in my book and yes that is why i play on a monitor, however what i was refering to was that i dont see a need for 120fps frame rates.  anything between 30-60 depending on the game (60fps for fighters and racers and 30fps for everything else) is good enough for me.  

instead of a game running at 80fps i would rather it run at 30 or 60 with more effects added.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Dec 1 2005, 10:49 AM)

i worded that wrong, higher resolutions are always a plus in my book and yes that is why i play on a monitor, however what i was refering to was that i dont see a need for 120fps frame rates.  anything between 30-60 depending on the game (60fps for fighters and racers and 30fps for everything else) is good enough for me.  

instead of a game running at 80fps i would rather it run at 30 or 60 with more effects added.

at least we cleared that up because I was about to tell you that you are nuts

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Dec 1 2005, 10:51 AM)

at least we cleared that up because I was about to tell you that you are nuts

well im happy you finally see my point for once

[asnpcwiz]

How about the fact that you freaking look like a nerd sitting in front of your computer all day playing games by yourself...while with the 360, you could have friends over playing on your nice ass HDTV...and they all don't have to bring their own unit either.

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Dec 1 2005, 12:28 PM)

How about the fact that you freaking look like a nerd sitting in front of your computer all day playing games by yourself...while with the 360, you could have friends over playing on your nice ass HDTV...and they all don't have to bring their own unit either.

OR



Ignore the retarded looking guy not playing games in the foreground...  

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Dec 1 2005, 11:28 AM)

How about the fact that you freaking look like a nerd sitting in front of your computer all day playing games by yourself...while with the 360, you could have friends over playing on your nice ass HDTV...and they all don't have to bring their own unit either.

And you don't look like a nerd playing on XBL by yourself and talking to (what looks like thin air) people with your headset?
No thats right, you look just like the PC gamer who is playing BF2 or Counter-Strike Source.
Have friends over you say, if I have friends over we don't just sit around and play games. If we did just play games, wouldnt that also make us look like a nerds?


Wurm : I don't get why you quoted me in your sig?

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Dec 1 2005, 12:50 PM)

Wurm : I don't get why you quoted me in your sig?

I was just dumbfounded that you said the system isn't maxxed out... just rushed.  Especially after you upped my post count 20 points just arguing with me about how the games are all stagnant on console.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Dec 1 2005, 12:06 PM)

I was just dumbfounded that you said the system isn't maxxed out... just rushed.  Especially after you upped my post count 20 points just arguing with me about how the games are all stagnant on console.

Well maybe you should read the post I was responding to. The question was about the frame rate issues and so was my answer.

PS: as if this doesnt have nerd written all over it

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Dec 1 2005, 01:16 PM)

Well maybe you should read the post I was responding to. The question was about the frame rate issues and so was my answer.

I meant in general... you have an overlying negative point of view on consoles and their games, especially in the progressive instance.  And that quote shocked me... coming from you.

QUOTE

PS: as if this doesnt have nerd written all over it

  Too true!  But at least he has friends.  

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Dec 1 2005, 12:19 PM)

Sorry dude, I have a wife and she doesn't mind playing games with me.  Unlike you and your sausage parties, I don't get with my friends to jack them off...we've been friends our entire lives, so doing even very casual things like playing games together makes sense.  By your reasoning, you're soooooo cool that you and your friends get together and throw keggers all the time.  No thanks, I'm too old for that, sitting down and watching a movie or playing games together is just fine with me...call me a nerd if you'd like.

Yes I can see your age showing right here with your response

By my reasoning Your original post was how console gamers are not nerds (aka cool) and PC gamers are nerds (aka not cool). Try not to contradict yoursefl in the near future and lay off with the immature replys