Post by: iwanttheagrocrag on December 16, 2005, 04:46:00 PM
Post by: gordita37 on December 16, 2005, 05:39:00 PM
Post by: Teemslo on December 16, 2005, 07:06:00 PM
Post by: XboxIguana on December 16, 2005, 07:12:00 PM
QUOTE(Teemslo @ Dec 16 2005, 09:13 PM) 
it is not worth droping 60$ on a port
I know you were just saying that about Gun but tell that to CoD2. That is a port and its the most bought game.
Post by: Deadman1515 on December 16, 2005, 07:45:00 PM
QUOTE(XboxIguana @ Dec 16 2005, 08:19 PM)
I know you were just saying that about Gun but tell that to CoD2. That is a port and its the most bought game.
After playing COD 2 on PC tho, playing it on 360 you feel seriously cheated out of gameplay and graphics.
Post by: spearfree on December 16, 2005, 08:11:00 PM
QUOTE(Deadman1515 @ Dec 17 2005, 03:52 AM)
After playing COD 2 on PC tho, playing it on 360 you feel seriously cheated out of gameplay and graphics.
What, the GFX on PC is way better than the 360s'?
Post by: XboxIguana on December 16, 2005, 08:20:00 PM
QUOTE(spearfree @ Dec 16 2005, 10:18 PM)
What, the GFX on PC is way better than the 360s'?
I played CoD2 on my PC but not on 360. It looks AWSOME on PC but my specs are better than the 360s so Im not sure what will be better.
Post by: gordita37 on December 16, 2005, 08:32:00 PM
Post by: m_hael on December 17, 2005, 03:34:00 AM
QUOTE(XboxIguana @ Dec 16 2005, 07:27 PM)
but my specs are better than the 360s
ok I REALLY need to know what you've got in that PC to make it better spec than a triple core 3.2Ghz Power PC.
Post by: chuxterofdoom on December 17, 2005, 04:21:00 AM
QUOTE(m_hael @ Dec 17 2005, 06:41 AM)
ok I REALLY need to know what you've got in that PC to make it better spec than a triple core 3.2Ghz Power PC.
xboxiguana = pwned by M_hael
Post by: Kernal69er on December 17, 2005, 05:56:00 AM
QUOTE(Deadman1515 @ Dec 16 2005, 09:52 PM)
After playing COD 2 on PC tho, playing it on 360 you feel seriously cheated out of gameplay and graphics.
I don't think there is a hughe difference, unless u have a $3000 gaming PC
PC version one of the year's best shooters remains intact on the Xbox 360 version of the game, which looks just as good and actually runs smoother than all but the most beastly of gaming PCs.
360 version runs smoother
http://www.gamespot....ty2/review.html
Post by: incognegro on December 17, 2005, 12:13:00 PM
Post by: m_hael on December 17, 2005, 04:30:00 PM
QUOTE(incognegro @ Dec 17 2005, 11:20 AM)
Gun is a straight port (as far as I can see) while COd2 is not......bottom line. now lets move on......
wrong - cod is a straight port, its just ported from a higher format than GUN.
Post by: Deftech on December 17, 2005, 06:18:00 PM
QUOTE(spIdeZ @ Dec 17 2005, 08:15 PM)
I still haven't seen any proof that the CPU in the Xbox 360 is any better than a high end x86 processor. Just look at Quake 4 - runs like total shit on the 360. Also Call of Duty seriously needs some more AA.
Processor differences aside....
How MANY times do we need announce that Quake 4 was a sloppy PC port done by Raven?
It has nothing do to with 360 lacking power. No part of Q4 was optimized for the 360. This is Not opinion.
CoD 2's AA is fine in 720p. I only noticed it a few times on things like railings, but the action is 2 frantic 2 really notice after that.
Post by: prankfurter on December 17, 2005, 07:21:00 PM
gun on the 360 does not look even close to how good a 360 game can look, but it is way smoother and clearer at 720p than the xbox at 480p. the textures are slightly higher res.
would have been nice if it was done more so to take advantage of the 360 but my opion is that as it was developed for the last generation systems it would have been too much of pain to redo all the models and textures in a true high res format.
looks like a very very clean xbox game... not a 360 game IMHO
still a fun game though
Post by: m_hael on December 17, 2005, 10:13:00 PM
QUOTE(spIdeZ @ Dec 17 2005, 09:03 PM)
in fact it is probably either just as powerful (and a lot harder to code for) or even less powerful.
ahh another would be expert... the power pc is actually FAR easier to code for than its x86 counterparts.. the reasons for a game port maybe running a little slower are based mainly in algorithm design. An algorithm designed for PC does not necessarily match the console hardware. When doing a port there isn't time to redesign the algorithms so you optimise the best you can within the time you have.
the x360 chip has several things its x86 counterparts do not but equally it has things missing that its x86 counterparts do have... the main thing being OOO execution (Out of Order) meaning the CPU moves code around dynamically to make it run as fast as possible. On the x360 this is done by the compiler as best as possible. On the x86 this is done by the CPU on the fly.... the x360 thus requires a better compiler and better all around design. Code designed to run fast on the x360 will exhibit similar speed on the x86 however not so ther other way around.
Post by: Deftech on December 17, 2005, 10:24:00 PM
QUOTE
If the 360 is really that powerful it shouldn't even need optimizations for Quake 4.
Wow, You just showed everyone here how naive you are on the subject, thanks for saving me a few sentences.
The 360 architecture can either help or hurt games. In quake 4, the quick port was detrimental. With more time and tweaking it could have been marginally smoother. It still would have been a port though, unless Raven scrapped the pc code and started from scratch and used the cpu's and the gpu in the 360, atleast to the point where it was all working more efficiently.
Please enlighten yourself and go Download the multitude of videos from QuakeCon and watch the Carmack interviews. You can see it and here it for yourself.
Look at Doom 3 on xbox. How in the hell do you think they got it to run so well on such an old system? Because Vicarious Visions spent 2.5 years on it, and found back doors to the GPU. It was NOT a pc port, it was optimized for the xbox. Raven took a game that was made to run on x86 cpu's and slapped it onto the 360 in mere months, totally different.
The 360 is efficient when mulitple cores and the threads within those cores are being used. None of that was used for quake 4.
read what you just typed...
QUOTE
I'm just saying that the 360's CPU can't be compared to an x86 CPU
Exactly, and that just reiterates what Ive said. Games would be easier to get up and running if the 360 used a regular x86 cpu, but thats not the case now is it?
Go watch the Quakecon videos, its all there for you to see. Carmack, for the first time, is going to use the 360 as his Lead dev platform for all their future titles, because when you tap into it, its offers the best tools he's ever seen. Thats just one example. Quake 4 was nothing but a sloppy, rushed pc port, its as simple as that. I don't need to mention Epics opinions do I?
Put your stubborness aside and be willing to learn a little, dont bother replying with immature shit just to save face, it'll save us all a headache.
I'll put my stubborness aside when m_hael responds to this and tells me Im a nut and known nothing
and to quote m_hael..
QUOTE
Code designed to run fast on the x360 will exhibit similar speed on the x86 however not so ther other way around.
BINGO!
If you cant decipher that, he's saying that...example...
Gears of War beinf developed to run good on the 360 would exhibit similar speed on a pc, where as if that very game was being made for PC first, and put on the 360, it wouldnt run as fast.
Thats the same thing Q4 sufffered from.
Post by: m_hael on December 18, 2005, 02:50:00 AM
Post by: steve008 on December 18, 2005, 07:48:00 PM
Correct me if im wrong(and i probably am
)
Post by: m_hael on December 18, 2005, 09:52:00 PM
QUOTE(steve008 @ Dec 18 2005, 06:55 PM)
I thought the x360 processor has to do more than a normal pr processor. Like a bit of each core is used for sound etc, whereas a pc has a more dedicated soundcard. The x360 cores are a kind of "jack of all trades" doing alot more with a game than a normal pc processor would have to.
Correct me if im wrong(and i probably am
)pc soundcards "play" sound.. they have some on board stuff for decompressing from compressed to uncompressed audio for realtime mixing and some cards even do the mixing for you with reverb 5.1 etc on board... directx handles the differences internally so you really have no clue what the CPU is doing and what the card is doing.
The 360 has elements on board that allow much of the same with more ability to tailor to the specific gamers needs. This said it does use some of its CPU power to process the audio for effects, this is a VERY small amount (~5% of a single thread). Further to this a small section of core 1 & 2 (Core 0 is 100% available) is used by the system to handle the Guide issues... this is finite and doesn't affect anything.
Further - a pc has to handle within its OS a LOT more than most people realise... I'll digress here as the subject is too large to discuss here and I'm bored but lets just say that theoretical performance and actual performance for a PC are very different.
In short - there isn't a PC out there today that comes even close to the actual performance of the x360 in terms of floating point throughput, memory access, GPU throughput or sound capability. Its a beast of a system.... for $400 your pc would most likely struggle with geometry wars (and that isn't a joke).
QUOTE(spIdeZ @ Dec 18 2005, 02:18 PM)
Haha is it possible for m_hael to EVER post in a thread where he doesn't brag about his job?
(BTW you should be ashamed for even being involved with that shitty game)Also Quake 4 isn't the only 360 title that slows down, so does PDZ in a lot of the cutscenes and King Kong drops pretty low also.
And still, you didn't get my point - that yes there are PCs that are just as fast as an 360!
oooh.... so you didn't like it huh? care to give us an objective review stating your reasoning?
btw - I feel I'm quite entitled to brag about my job...
I love it and I don't know many people that work all their lives LOVING what they do for a living.
Post by: xoverburnx on December 18, 2005, 10:38:00 PM
I LOVED GUN!!!! there should DEFINITELY be a sequel with a LARGER WORLD MAP 
the shortness of this game should knock its quality (beat it on xbox), it didn't make the storyline excessive with too many filler plotpoints and was still awesome!
on the xbox360 there is not much of a difference, i spent alot of time playing this title on the xbox360 at Zero Hour, it was like the same game EXCEPT xbox360's controller is much better to use with the extra buttons on the left and ride trigger sides instead of the black and white buttons which are awkward