Print

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(DWells55 @ Nov 29 2005, 08:48 PM)

Too bad it can't een hit the 30FPS mark on the two Xbox's I've played it on.  And what's the co-op FPS? 15?

And at the end of the day, it's STILL 640x480.  No Anti-Aliasing or Antisoptric Filtering either...

Not to mention Xbox games have a huge advantage: every person who runs the game has the EXACT SAME specs.  So they know exactly what to optimize the game for, soemhting that us PC gamers don't get...

I just think the 360 games are really not using it's hardware very well....

so your agreeing with me right?  you basically said the same stuff as me......

QUOTE

i think this whole compare PC to console will always be stupid. people can argue on both sides till the cows come home. a console is a base platform which developers can learn new ways to get more out of and exploit to new hieghts where a PC is always upgraded but held back by so much (bottleneck and lowest common spec).

i already pointed out that the advantage of a console is that they have one base spec and it allows the devs to exploit the platform more then a PC ever will be, that is part of what interests me with consoles, there is less wasted technology and its cool to see how devs bend, push, and get to the bare metal of these systems.  

i dont know about you but the xbox i had my game running on ran fine at 30 fps, and it was your connection cutting the frame rate in half on co-op because when i got a good connection in a game it ran smooth as silk most of the time.  

of course the games arent using the hardware very well, they are launch games.  even if an engine uses more then one core (like CoD2 uses one for the AI) doesnt mean that the game or game engine has been programmed for multi-core architecture or developed to use the eDRAM which should add a huge performance boost.  developers not getting their final kits until late august/early september should prove enough that these games arent even stratching the surface of the 360's power.  wait until games that are ACTUALLY programmed for the game come out and use the system how its meant to be used.

all this just furthers my point of comparison.  condemned a game that is developed on largely under-developed and underpowered dev kits, not using any of the systems power, is still head and shoulders above FEAR another game by the same developer but for the PC, a well known platform for the developer.  so with all this in mind how can anyone say that the 360 (and ps3 for that matter) wont be leaps beyond whats on the PC once the systems are actually being utilized in the least bit.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 30 2005, 09:47 AM)

of course the games arent using the hardware very well, they are launch games.

Let me explain this in a term that you may know, directx, I bet the graphics will not get that much better. Lets be serious for a few seconds. Look at Halo 1 and then look at Halo 2, how much better did Halo 2 really look then Halo 1? Not very much and still to this day some people think Halo 1 was a better looking game and it was a launch game. The only real advancement you will see throughout the 360's life will be with the CPU when devs learn how to make multi-threaded engines. Like I said, the M$ systems use a directx variant, meaning the graphics are easy to exploit from the beginning.
Halo 1

Halo 2

Splinter Cell

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory

PGR

PGR2

Rallisport Challenge

Rallisport Challenge 2


I rest my case!

QUOTE

condemned a game that is developed on largely under-developed and underpowered dev kits, not using any of the systems power, is still head and shoulders above FEAR another game by the same developer but for the PC

  Please tell me the system specs of the PC you played FEAR on. It obviously wasnt a very nice PC if you really think condemned was head and shoulders above FEAR

[LowProfileWurm]

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but...

Can anyone find me a PC that costs $400 and still plays games that look like 360 games?

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Nov 30 2005, 10:36 AM)

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but...

Can anyone find me a PC that costs $400 and still plays games that look like 360 games?

Hmm, no better argument than the cost? Did I just crush everyones whole theory of let the system mature? While you are at it find me a console that lets me do everything a PC does? Also find me an HDTV with 720p native resolution so I can get the full use out of the 360.......................

Lets add this up shall we.

xbox 360 = $400
a nice 720p HDTV that will last and works correctly = around $700-1000

a very nice PC that will allow higher resolutions then 720p = about the same price as that 720p HDTV(again one that is nice and will last) and the xbox 360

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 10:29 AM)

Let me explain this in a term that you may know, directx, I bet the graphics will not get that much better. Lets be serious for a few seconds. Look at Halo 1 and then look at Halo 2, how much better did Halo 2 really look then Halo 1? Not very much and still to this day some people think Halo 1 was a better looking game and it was a launch game. The only real advancement you will see throughout the 360's life will be with the CPU when devs learn how to make multi-threaded engines. Like I said, the M$ systems use a directx variant, meaning the graphics are easy to exploit from the beginning.
Halo 1

Halo 2

Splinter Cell

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory

PGR

PGR2


I rest my case!
  Please tell me the system specs of the PC you played FEAR on. It obviously wasnt a very nice PC if you really think condemned was head and shoulders above FEAR

no disrespect but you are exactly the kind of person i spoke of when i said its clear to what platform people favor.  im blind but even i see a difference between halo 1/2, PGR 1/2, and ESPECIALLY splinter cell 1 to 3.  the main complaint i have heard about the graphics on halo 2 vs. 1 is that the textures arent as crisp when zoomed in on but that isnt always the case and with so many more effects and textures being used some compromises needed to be made, with PGRs i only heard of people wanting it to stay at 60fps like it was in part 1, as for the SC i havent heard any complaints as it reached a new level of detail and graphical presentation not thought possible on the xbox.  i understand what direct x means to a system, but the kind of language and tools used to develop for a console doesnt make a difference to how much power isnt being exploited, it just means its more of a familiar developing environment for the devs.  i have read countless interviews of devs pushing more polys, better textures, more particles, and more effects with more mature tools and time with the xbox so go ahead and think and see what you want to but a fact is a fact when a system is being pushed harder.  if i remember right you like the racing game TOCA (as do i), well the developers for that game has stated (as with many other devs) that its scary to how much better games will look a year or two from now once they better learn the hardware.......

QUOTE

Xb360info.com: How satisfied are you with the graphical abilities of the Xbox 360 in terms of creating photorealistic graphics: Is the available hardware finally powerful enough to create images that are truly life like?
Codemasters: As I mentioned earlier we really are going to see near photorealistic images from day one.

What interests me is that our processing efficiency is only going to get better as time goes on. What we will be achieving in a few years from now is quite scary. It might be that we shift some processing capabilities onto the GPU and do much more AI/physics on the main CPUs.

i think your only going by the progression that other consoles took during their life cycles, going from crap to desent or good where the xbox started off with good and got better.  

i honestly dont know what the specs were on the rig i played other then it was a gaming rig, had the latest nVIDIA GPU and was built from the ground up for gaming.  with all the effects to its highest setting the game still chugged at times, though it was beautiful im comparing this game to condemned in the sense that with condemned all the effects are cranked and maxed and the game just overall looks better.  im not saying FEAR looks bad, not at all its a very beautiful game but when it comes to poly counts, character models, texture detail, particle effects, lighting, and filtering condemned comes out on top.  i favor consoles thats for sure, but i also like PCs and see how great they are for gaming but my opinions wont effect the facts of what is what with games, but of course you can and always will point to the one main advantage PCs will always have over consoles, the resolution, well i keep the res at comparable levels that way its a FAIR comparison and still condemned looked better.

im still laughing that you think SC: CT doesnt look any or much better then SC 1    

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 10:45 AM)

Hmm, no better argument than the cost? Did I just crush everyones whole theory of let the system mature? While you are at it find me a console that lets me do everything a PC does? Also find me an HDTV with 720p native resolution so I can get the full use out of the 360.......................

Lets add this up shall we.

xbox 360 = $400
a nice 720p HDTV that will last and works correctly = around $700-1000

a very nice PC that will allow higher resolutions then 720p = about the same price as that 720p HDTV(again one that is nice and will last) and the xbox 360

you didnt crush anything for me, im just at work and it takes time to reply sometimes.  i kept away from the cost comparison as that is one of the common advantages people use for consoles (like higher rez for the PC).  also people dont buy consoles to do everything a PC does they buy them for gaming, people buy PCs to do what a PC does so thats a mute point.  and since your bringing up the whole HDTV and price factor, i much rather pay over $1000 so i can play high rez next gen games on my couch watching on a nice large TV then hurdled over a desk sitting in front of a monitor (which is oronic because i play my 360 on a monitor until i get a HDTV   ).  

why your argueing about things your obviously influenced by your biased opinions is beyond me, and to make matters worse you dont even own a 360 but only played it for a weeken at a friends house.  all the experiences and events that have already happened in my hours of gaming in the week i have owned my 360 is already well worth the wait in line and the $400 to me  

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 30 2005, 11:12 AM)

im still laughing that you think SC: CT doesnt look any or much better then SC 1    

The only person laughing is me, since I have pics there that prove it doesnt look that much better, but I already know you are a blind M$ fanboy so I wont worry about it much.  

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 11:21 AM)

The only person laughing is me, since I have pics there that prove it doesnt look that much better, but I already know you are a blind M$ fanboy so I wont worry about it much.  

i may favor a company because of what they do or dont do but i dont let it blind me from what is the truth, you can post all the pics that you want but even you have said before that pics dont do any game justice.  why are pics not good enough for you until you try to prove a point?  every single game you posted looks way better in person to the eyes and in the technical details, so you are the one who is not only blind but also dilusional.  not only that but you got them from gamespot who doesnt know shit about taking good pics.  you can keep marking me as a fanboy because it makes no difference, my most beloved consoles are still sega consoles.  also if trying to label me is the best argument that you can come up with then i think i have proven my point about everything that i have said.

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 11:45 AM)

Hmm, no better argument than the cost? Did I just crush everyones whole theory of let the system mature? While you are at it find me a console that lets me do everything a PC does? Also find me an HDTV with 720p native resolution so I can get the full use out of the 360.......................

Lets add this up shall we.

xbox 360 = $400
a nice 720p HDTV that will last and works correctly = around $700-1000

a very nice PC that will allow higher resolutions then 720p = about the same price as that 720p HDTV(again one that is nice and will last) and the xbox 360

Hahaha.  I was just posing a question.  You didn't crush anything.  

But, we'll take this further.

Xbox360 = $400.
30" 720p CRT HDTV = ~$850
Xbox Live 1 year = $50
Total = ~$1300

Decent Homebuilt PC = ~$1000+
20" 8ms LCD = ~$650
Controller/Keyboard/Mouse = $50
Endless patches = $priceless
Total = ~$1700

For 10 more inches of glass, and a savings of nearly $400, I'll stick to consoles.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 30 2005, 11:27 AM)

every single game you posted looks way better in person to the eyes and in the technical details, so you are the one who is not only blind but also dilusional. not only that but you got them from gamespot who doesnt know shit about taking good pics.

Sorry, I thought it would be better than the fake developer pics IGN uses. I also used pics that seemed the same, and if they are all from the same place, that would make them even. Some of those games may look better in person, but the point still stands. When side by side they don't look that much better.

QUOTE

also if trying to label me is the best argument that you can come up with then i think i have proven my point about everything that i have said.

Oh yes and your new argument is that I am not only blind, but also delusional.

Hypocrite says what?

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Nov 30 2005, 11:32 AM)

Hahaha.  I was just posing a question.  You didn't crush anything.  

But, we'll take this further.

Xbox360 = $400.
30" 720p CRT HDTV = ~$850
Xbox Live 1 year = $50
Total = ~$1300

Decent Homebuilt PC = ~$1000+
20" 8ms LCD = ~$650
Controller/Keyboard/Mouse = $50
Endless patches = $priceless
Total = ~$1700

For 10 more inches of glass, and a savings of nearly $400, I'll stick to consoles.

If you are only using a CRT HDTV, why not a CRT monitor. Lets keep things even here...................so take $400 off since a CRT monitor does not cost anything over $200. That would put the price back to about the same like I said. Also lets not forget what you will be seeing perceptually between the screens. You will be sitting roughly 6-8' from the TV while only 2-3' from the monitor. Nice try though........

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 12:37 PM)

If you are only using a CRT HDTV, why not a CRT monitor. Lets keep thing even here...................so take $400 off since a CRT monitor does not cost anything over $200
 

Ok.  Fair is fair.  Can you get a 30" CRT computer monitor that delivers cable television?  I used that 20" Dell monitor because it does in fact include a tuner.  But, fair is fair.  

A 20" (largest I could find) Viewsonic CRT PC monitor = $450 on newegg.  

Unless you want to use the 17" eyesore monitors... then we can bring it down to $150.  


Then on the other hand, Fair is fair, so I'm gonna take that premium 30" TV I used in my example and instead use a 27" 1080i (which the 360 converts to... I've used it, 1080i looks just as good) Toshiba HDTV that costs $500.  Still using 10" more glass and it still costs $400 less.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Nov 30 2005, 11:49 AM)

A 20" (largest I could find) Viewsonic CRT PC monitor = $450 on newegg.  

Is that why my 20" CRT (1600x1200) that was bought 4 years ago at a retail store called micro center only cost me $170.

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 12:52 PM)

Is that why my 20" CRT (1600x1200) that was bought 4 years ago at a retail store called micro center only cost me $170.

I just searched newegg for the cheapest/largest CRT I could find.  If you found a bargain junker on clearance, to you.

And enjoy that 2 foot viewing distance.  I prefer to sit back 8 feet in my recliner and enjoy the game with friends.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 11:37 AM)

Sorry, I thought it would be better than the fake developer pics IGN uses. I also used pics that seemed the same, and if they are all from the same place, that would make them even. Some of those games may look better in person, but the point still stands. When side by side they don't look that much better.

Oh yes and your new argument is that I am not only blind, but also delusional.

Hypocrite says what?

If you are only using a CRT HDTV, why not a CRT monitor. Lets keep things even here...................so take $400 off since a CRT monitor does not cost anything over $200. That would put the price back to about the same like I said. Also lets not forget what you will be seeing perceptually between the screens. You will be sitting roughly 6-8' from the TV while only 2-3' from the monitor. Nice try though........

they dont look that much better to you but they do to the majority of people and its still a fact that technically they push much more out of the console with the sequals with more time with the hardware, just because your blind to the difference doesnt mean it isnt there.  also you have said yourself that you dont think that any launch titles of any system impresses you and you wait for the games that come later in a consoles life cycle, but if games that come later dont look much better then ones out at launch doesnt that mean your contradicting yourself?  and your trying to call me a hypocrite??  

why not continue to debate with the things i have pointed out about the console progression, developers opinions, technical comparisons of FEAR vs condemned, how you go by game pics only when it benefits you, how you compare PCs to consoles is the wrong way, or the benefits when playing on nice big TV compared to a monitor even if the price in the end is comparable?  why does it you seem to jump into any debate you can but back out as fast when your trapped in a corner with nothing more to stand by your point?

yes you used the pics from the same site, all crappy pics that are void of the details that are in the game in the first place.  this way they all do look the same because they are all low quality the same.  yes i do favor the 360 for many reasons, more reasons then just the parent companies behind each platform (controller, cost, franchises, release date, etc) but i have never been ignorant to the accomplishments of another company or system.  you are ignorant to anything you dont agree with and enjoy twisting words and reality around to make yourself feel better about your mindless points.  i make comparisons on a level playing feild from hands on experience where you just have your biased opinion doing the thinking and seeing for you.  if your never going to get a 360 then i fail to see why you still hang around here to listen to a bunch of "fanboys".  i hope a day comes when a person can own and appreciate a console and not be labeled.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 30 2005, 11:58 AM)

 also you have said yourself that you dont think that any launch titles of any system impresses you and you wait for the games that come later in a consoles life cycle, but if games that come later dont look much better then ones out at launch doesnt that mean your contradicting yourself?  and your trying to call me a hypocrite??  

Who is twisting words to suit their needs now? You are right, launch games never impress me because the gameplay is the same as last gen or only slightly better and not worth the money.

QUOTE

but i have never been ignorant to the accomplishments of another company or system.  you are ignorant to anything you dont agree with and enjoy twisting words and reality around to make yourself feel better about your mindless points.

Wow, just wow, your whole argument has become nothing more than an attack on me.............

You may not understand this, but any and all major advancements in the gaming world are done on the PC. This is a fact.
You know them things called shaders, HDR, AA, AF, and all the other graphical effects you like so much, yup developed for the PC.
Online gaming, yup PC first.

QUOTE

why does it you seem to jump into any debate you can but back out as fast when your trapped in a corner with nothing more to stand by your point?

I wonder why, maybe because this site is full of xbox lovers and it doesnt matter what a person says. Did you ever think about that one or were you to busy ridiculing me?

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 01:06 PM)

I wonder why, maybe because this site is full of xbox lovers and it doesnt matter what a person says. Did you ever think about that one or were you too busy ridiculing me?

Hmmm, I wonder why too... it is www.XBOX-scene.com isn't it?