Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 29, 2005, 08:37:00 AM
QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Nov 29 2005, 10:39 AM) 
But a console allows you to do so much more.
Right, are you sure about that one. I can think of tons of things I can do on my PC that I can't on a console, but can't think of one thing a console does that my PC doesnt.
QUOTE
I don't want this to become a console vs. PC war, so I'm just going to say I agree you that on a PC it looks better, but the point of the thread was to give input for people who want to buy games for their console...not the PC.
Sorry that 2 out of the 5 games I talked about are on PC also and I made a comment about them
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 29, 2005, 08:55:00 AM
QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Nov 29 2005, 10:55 AM)
I just didn't want this thread to be hijacked and become a pointless discussion on console vs. PC.
But didnt you hijack it? Others had mentioned that PC versions of COD 2 and Quake 4 looked better and it wasnt hijacked yet, so why come down on me for my opinions? Why did yoiu hijack the thread to talk about how you didnt want it to become hijacked?
Post by: miggidy on November 29, 2005, 09:58:00 AM
QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Nov 29 2005, 04:39 PM)
To be honest, my PC at home is many times more powerful than the 360.
Really?
Do you have a tripple core 64-bit cpu in your PC?
I didn't even know those were available
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 29, 2005, 10:03:00 AM
QUOTE(miggidy @ Nov 29 2005, 12:05 PM)
Really?
Do you have a tripple core 64-bit cpu in your PC?
I didn't even know those were available
And did you know the tri-core IBM cpu is not that powerful in real world performance, not theoretical performance like M$ and IBM PR tell you? Take note the cache size on both the CELL and the Xenon, they are small and insufficient.
Here is another example of you feeding into the PR BS.
An AMD Athlon 64 3000 runs at only 1.8Ghz, but out performs a pentium 4 running at 3.2Ghz. Just like your "tripple core 64-bit cpu", it may sound more powerful, but in reality it isnt.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 29, 2005, 10:29:00 AM
QUOTE(miggidy @ Nov 29 2005, 12:25 PM)
Which begs the question, how does his "real world performance" pc outperform the X360 in video game applications????
Don't get me wrong, the 360 is powerful, but only because of the GPU.
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 29, 2005, 10:34:00 AM
Post by: DWells55 on November 29, 2005, 11:02:00 AM
QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Nov 29 2005, 12:41 PM)
I think it's wholesomely unfair to compare the 360 launch games to games on a PC platform that has been around for decades. The architectures are different and the final silicon for wasn't ready until September. How about if we put this PC vs. 360 power debate on hold until the 360 has some time to mature?
I think it's fair. My 1.5 year old GeForce 6800 running Half Life 2 (how long ago was it released?) looks as good if not better than some of the 360 titles.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 29, 2005, 11:08:00 AM
QUOTE(DWells55 @ Nov 29 2005, 01:09 PM)
I think it's fair. My 1.5 year old GeForce 6800 running Half Life 2 (how long ago was it released?) looks as good if not better than some of the 360 titles.
Agreed and just for the sake of it, lets throw F.E.A.R. into the mix.
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 29, 2005, 11:14:00 AM
QUOTE(DWells55 @ Nov 29 2005, 02:09 PM)
I think it's fair. My 1.5 year old GeForce 6800 running Half Life 2 (how long ago was it released?) looks as good if not better than some of the 360 titles.
And just for the sake of it, lets compare games with less than 3 years of development time, ala HL2.
Post by: DWells55 on November 29, 2005, 11:57:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 29 2005, 01:15 PM)
Agreed and just for the sake of it, lets throw F.E.A.R. into the mix.
Exactly. FEAR is stunning.
Post by: KAGE360 on November 29, 2005, 12:28:00 PM
you guys keep comparing ports and even if its done right (CoD2) or half assed (Q4) its still just a port and not a game developed soley for the console. i understand you cant do a direct comparison of any kind of CPUs (Power PC, Intel or AMD) but if the power PC CPU isnt nearly as powerful as quoted then why did all 3 of the console companies choose Power PC when its generally more pricey then the other options?? it was a developer from Bizarre Creations who stated that both of the next gen consoles (ps3 and 360) get around 90% of their power is measured by their GPU but that doesnt mean that the CPUs are anything to sneeze at.
you guys want to compare games then how about compare FEAR to condemned?? they are both developed by the same developer and i think may even use the same engine (read it was rumored but not sure if true) and i have played both. both are also developed just for the respected platform and not a port. though the gameplay is different that doesnt mean that you cant compare texture, poly count, lighting, effects, and other such graphical accomplishments and come up with a better opinion to where each platform stands. condemned clearly looks better IMHO and i dont see why anyone would argue this point. PGR3 is another perfect example, stack those graphics against ANY PC racer and it will beat it hands down. so you see that when put on an even playing feild that the 360 clearly comes out regardless of opinions. sorry for the long rant but this is all stupid to bicker about which is better when its clear that everyone favors their own platform of choice.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 29, 2005, 12:40:00 PM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 29 2005, 02:35 PM)
i understand you cant do a direct comparison of any kind of CPUs (Power PC, Intel or AMD) but if the power PC CPU isnt nearly as powerful as quoted then why did all 3 of the console companies choose Power PC when its generally more pricey then the other options??
They all chose the PPC because of price (yeah it was cheaper), power consumption, and heat dispersion.
About FEAR and condemned, I havent played condemned, but how do the physics stack up against FEAR.
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 29, 2005, 12:46:00 PM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 29 2005, 03:35 PM)
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). look at Splinter Cell CT for the xbox, that was a 4 year old console but still put out graphics comparable to the PC version (minus AA and higher res at the time). it is wrong for anyone to compare the 360 to a PC because nothing has even been developed on a finished 360 dev kit. regardless of anyone being too stubborn to admit it, there is technology in the 360 that is beyond that in a PC and will be for atleast a year from now.
you guys keep comparing ports and even if its done right (CoD2) or half assed (Q4) its still just a port and not a game developed soley for the console. i understand you cant do a direct comparison of any kind of CPUs (Power PC, Intel or AMD) but if the power PC CPU isnt nearly as powerful as quoted then why did all 3 of the console companies choose Power PC when its generally more pricey then the other options?? it was a developer from Bizarre Creations who stated that both of the next gen consoles (ps3 and 360) get around 90% of their power is measured by their GPU but that doesnt mean that the CPUs are anything to sneeze at.
you guys want to compare games then how about compare FEAR to condemned?? they are both developed by the same developer and i think may even use the same engine (read it was rumored but not sure if true) and i have played both. both are also developed just for the respected platform and not a port. though the gameplay is different that doesnt mean that you cant compare texture, poly count, lighting, effects, and other such graphical accomplishments and come up with a better opinion to where each platform stands. condemned clearly looks better IMHO and i dont see why anyone would argue this point. PGR3 is another perfect example, stack those graphics against ANY PC racer and it will beat it hands down. so you see that when put on an even playing feild that the 360 clearly comes out regardless of opinions. sorry for the long rant but this is all stupid to bicker about which is better when its clear that everyone favors their own platform of choice.
Post by: KAGE360 on November 29, 2005, 12:54:00 PM
surprised you have no other comments though deftones, im happy you seem to agree with me on the whole comparison fiasco
Post by: DWells55 on November 29, 2005, 06:41:00 PM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 29 2005, 02:35 PM)
look at Splinter Cell CT for the xbox, that was a 4 year old console but still put out graphics comparable to the PC version
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....
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2005, 07:40:00 AM
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.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 08:22:00 AM
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
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 30, 2005, 08:29:00 AM
Can anyone find me a PC that costs $400 and still plays games that look like 360 games?
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 08:38:00 AM
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 $700-1000
a very nice PC that will allow higher resolutions then 720p = about the same price as that 720p HDTV(again one that is nice and will last) and the xbox 360
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2005, 09:12:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 10:29 AM)
Let me explain this in a term that you may know, directx, I bet the graphics will not get that much better. Lets be serious for a few seconds. Look at Halo 1 and then look at Halo 2, how much better did Halo 2 really look then Halo 1? Not very much and still to this day some people think Halo 1 was a better looking game and it was a launch game. The only real advancement you will see throughout the 360's life will be with the CPU when devs learn how to make multi-threaded engines. Like I said, the M$ 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 FEARno 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.
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 $400 to me
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 09:14:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 30 2005, 11:12 AM)
im still laughing that you think SC: CT doesnt look any or much better then SC 1
The only person laughing is me, since I have pics there that prove it doesnt look that much better, but I already know you are a blind M$ fanboy so I wont worry about it much.
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2005, 09:20:00 AM
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.
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 30, 2005, 09:25:00 AM
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
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.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 09:30:00 AM
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........
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 30, 2005, 09:42:00 AM
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
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.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 09:45:00 AM
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.
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 30, 2005, 09:50:00 AM
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.
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.
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2005, 09:51:00 AM
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.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 09:59:00 AM
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?
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 30, 2005, 10:13:00 AM
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?
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2005, 10:14:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 12:06 PM)
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.
Wow, just wow, your whole argument has become nothing more than an attack on me.............
ok fine, since you dont like it any better then i do, i say we be mature people and shy away from the personal attacks then.
im not twisting any words around, i just remember what poeple say and like, and im trying to understand how you can think some ways that you do. ok so if a launch games is only slightly better then previous gen's games then how come you can like sequals that are still only slightly better gameplay wise then the launch title to begin with? i wont continue to debate things you willingly back out from.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 10:24:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 30 2005, 12:21 PM)
ok so if a launch games is only slightly better then previous gen's games then how come you can like sequals that are still only slightly better gameplay wise then the launch title to begin with?
I normally don't play those games, I just argued with wurm about burnout revenge and this point, but I will try to explain it. I don't want to play a game unless the next version presents me a new challenge, not just new modes and/or better graphics. Burnout is the perfect example of this. Sure Burnout revenge had new modes that were not present in takedown, but that didnt help. My whole problem was that revenge was an easier game than takedown, which was already pretty easy to begin with. It did not present me a new challenge.....I blew through the game way quick because I already knew how the game played.
You know how you like to say that in 2 years the new systems will really take advantage of their hardware, at that point the PC will probably have a SM 4.0 which will leave the console behind. Hell, some companies are already starting to make dual GPU GFX cards. If GFX cards are now having 512MB of GDDR3, in two years what do you expect them to have?
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2005, 10:35:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 12:06 PM)
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.
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?
how stupid do you think people here are? of course all graphical advancements are done on the PC first, they are upgraded and evolving constantly. if we waited for consoles every 5 years to dictate when graphical advancements are made then we would still be just using guraud shading
if consoles were released every 6 months and PCs werent updated for 5 years at a time then the same can be said in an opposite manner, but just because all graphical advancements are done on PC doesnt mean all gameplay advancements are. also IMO just because they are developed on PC doesnt mean that they are developed with only a PC in mind but for games in general. even though the power of todays gaming PCs will always be enhanced that doesnt mean that its being used, lowest common specs and the bottleneck of the PC itself will always hold back the true potential that any PC will have. and i dont get what this forum being ful of xbox lovers has to do with our discussion. this debate is between you, lowprofile, and I so there isnt any forum of xbox lovers jumping all over no matter what you say, only us not agreeing with your views of how to compare PCs and consoles because you dont do it on a level playing feild.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 10:40:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 30 2005, 12:42 PM)
but just because all graphical advancements are done on PC doesnt mean all gameplay advancements are.
Please name one gameplay advancement done on the consoles, that wasnt already done with a PC.
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 30, 2005, 10:44:00 AM
QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Nov 30 2005, 01:46 PM)
Wow...totally not the point of this thread. If you guys want to argue about whether console or PC is better and costs of CRT monitors, you could please do it somewhere else? I was hoping this thread would be a help for people considering which 360 games to buy. Please respect this and don't troll here...
Sorry man, but you kinda started it. We're not trolling... you just laid fertile ground for debate. Sorry it's not evolving into the help thread you envisioned, but that's the risk you take on a forum.
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2005, 10:47:00 AM
QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Nov 30 2005, 12:46 PM)
Wow...totally not the point of this thread. If you guys want to argue about whether console or PC is better and costs of CRT monitors, you could please do it somewhere else? I was hoping this thread would be a help for people considering which 360 games to buy. Please respect this and don't troll here...
sorry to get off topic and i will end it shortly
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 12:47 PM)
Please name one gameplay advancement done on the consoles, that wasnt already done with a PC.i know this may only be just one but i havent played, seen, heard of, or read about a good fighting game on a PC so there you go. regardless of there actually being fighters on PCs it was started in the arcades and home consoles before PC could even keep up to run one.
you make some good points but no matter what advancements are done on a PC they usually arent fully realized or utilized until they are braught to the console, which is built and made for gaming alone. platformers, racers, adventure games, fighters, and RPGs have all been takin to the next level or fully realized on a console. you may have SM 4.0 but it wont be fully used like the 3.0+ in the 360 will, and that console will have USA long before PCs so that is one graphical advancement done on a console over a PC for the first time
. PCs will always rule in the online era IMO but i still much rather have the convenience and features of LIVE.
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 30, 2005, 10:48:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 01:47 PM)
Please name one gameplay advancement done on the consoles, that wasnt already done with a PC.Dual analog stick control? That's the only thing that pops into mind at the moment. I'll think on this though.
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2005, 10:57:00 AM
QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Nov 30 2005, 12:55 PM)
Dual analog stick control? That's the only thing that pops into mind at the moment. I'll think on this though.
i think he means advancements in the gameplay itself, like MMOs, jumping around in platformers, creeping in the dark on a FPS, they have all been done on a PC first. however like i said it has been taking a step further on consles, analog triggers for gas and brake for racers, MANY advancements with fighters on consoles, and another thing to further my point is that with more of a common factor of hardware developers are less concerned with graphical and hardware complications and can concentrate more on gameplay and advancements in gaming itself.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 10:59:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 30 2005, 12:54 PM)
i know this may only be just one but i havent played, seen, heard of, or read about a good fighting game on a PC so there you go.
QUOTE
you may have SM 4.0 but it wont be fully used like the 3.0+ in the 360 will, and that console will have USA long before PCs so that is one graphical advancement done on a console over a PC for the first time
Except for the fact that there are already computer games that use SM 3.0, making the console second to use it. I really doubt the launch games are really using full SM 3.0 anyways. Remember your own point, the devkits most developers had did not have full 360 hardware but GFX chips that only could do SM 2.0b
QUOTE
analog triggers for gas and brake for racers
Its called a steering wheel and pedals on my PC (aka analog triggers for gas and brake and analog steering)
QUOTE
and another thing to further my point is that with more of a common factor of hardware developers are less concerned with graphical and hardware complications and can concentrate more on gameplay and advancements in gaming itself.
That might be the worst point ever. I don't know if you just don't notice this, but how many classics have you played on the xbox. Even if they were classic they never were classic like SNES, Genesis, N64, PSX, NES, Atari, etc games are. Why you may ask? Because the gaming world is full of graphics whores now and most developers spend more time on graphics than anything else and it really shows in the past 3-5 years.
QUOTE
atleast there isnt a whole genre left out on the console as apposed to the PC
Yeah, there are about as many RTS games on consoles as there is fighting games on PC's
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2005, 11:05:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 01:06 PM)
That is not a gameplay advancement, just a game genre.
Except for the fact that there are already computer games that use SM 3.0, making the console second to use it. I really doubt the launch games are really using full SM 3.0 anyways. Remember your own point, the devkits most developers had did not have full 360 hardware but GFX chips that only could do SM 2.0b
there are many gameplay elements in that genre so you knew what i meant, my point still stands that it is not done on PC first. atleast there isnt a whole genre left out on the console as apposed to the PC
i know PC games use SM 3.0 and i dont disagree with you on that a lot of launch titles wont use SM 3.0 but all this still furthers my point. a launch title that doesnt even use the hardware or its features still looks as good if not better then any "next gen" PC game and even when games use SM 4.0 they still wont be using the technology to its fullest potential or come close like a console would so still some technology is wasted which is a shame IMO.
Post by: Deftech on November 30, 2005, 11:12:00 AM
even if screenshots are doctored, its fair to compare a doctored Splinter Cell 1 pick to a doctored Splinter Cell 3 pick.
If you cannot see the difference in the following, you don't deserve to be here, you don't have the right to type and submit anything concerning graphics. Get off your ass and get your eyes examined. The difference, graphically, from SC 1 to Chaos Theory is night and day. Amazing how someone accuses people of being fanboys but is so fuggin stubborn that they won't admit theres a difference. Its either stubborness, or true eye problems. Theres no other explanation.
Splinter 1 pics...
http://media.xbox.ig...175/imgs_1.html
Splinter 3 pics...
http://media.xbox.ig...200/imgs_1.html
There was noticable difference part 1 and 2 for shits sake, Chaos took it a step further
To say there wasnt much difference graphically from PGR to PGR 2 is just foolish. Quit quoting the sob
Exiting......
Post by: incognegro on November 30, 2005, 11:15:00 AM
I shouldve known deftones was involved. Why ppl argue with this guy, ill never understand.
He always brings up his " Your a fanboy and im not" argument to feed his ego and ppl always take the bait.
Its funny to me....lol......all of you do yourselves a favor, just leave him alone, he wouldnt have anything substantial to talk about if ppl didnt disagree with him
Now, back on topic, I changed my mind and i believe smash tv is the best 360 game!!!
Marketplace is da shit!......lol
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 11:17:00 AM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Nov 30 2005, 01:19 PM)
good grief
even if screenshots are doctored, its fair to compare a doctored Splinter Cell 1 pick to a doctored Splinter Cell 3 pick.
If you cannot see the difference in the following, you don't deserve to be here, you don't have the right to type and submit anything concerning graphics. Get off your ass and get your eyes examined. The difference, graphically, from SC 1 to Chaos Theory is night and day. Amazing how someone accuses people of being fanboys but is so fuggin stubborn that they won't admit theres a difference. Its either stubborness, or true eye problems. Theres no other explanation.
Splinter 1 pics...
http://media.xbox.ig...175/imgs_1.html
Splinter 3 pics...
http://media.xbox.ig...200/imgs_1.html
There was noticable difference part 1 and 2 for shits sake, Chaos took it a step further
To say there wasnt much difference graphically from PGR to PGR 2 is just foolish. Quit quoting the sob
Exiting......
ah yes because i remember SC:CT on xbox being jaggie free like this pic
and if you knew how to read, I didnt say there was no difference, I said there isnt that much of a difference
ah now here is a pic of SC:CT that looks more like what the game really looked like on the xbox
doesnt look so hot without the 6xAA and 16xAF that the "other xbox" pic had
Post by: Deftech on November 30, 2005, 11:24:00 AM
QUOTE(incognegro @ Nov 30 2005, 01:22 PM)
I was wondering how this topic jump to 6 pages already........lol
I shouldve known deftones was involved. Why ppl argue with this guy, ill never understand.
He always brings up his " Your a fanboy and im not" argument to feed his ego and ppl always take the bait.
Its funny to me....lol......all of you do yourselves a favor, just leave him alone, he wouldnt have anything to talk about if ppl didnt disagree with him
I havent argued with him in months,I want a cookie!! If the 2 bastards(you know who you are) would stop quoting him, I wouldnt have made the last post I did
I find it hard 2 believe the human eye can't see the visual differences between splinter cells and pgrs. Its the stubborness that steps in, it has 2 be.
QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Nov 30 2005, 01:27 PM)
Thanks...I knew there were a lot more games than those already mentioned...I haven't seen much talk at all about Ridge Racer 6, Tiger Woods, NHL, 2K6, or GUN...any inputs anyone?!?
RR6, dislike the series.
Tiger woods, same.
NHL, same.
2K6, same.
GUN, will try when the price drops a little. All my friends who *usually* like the same games say its one of the most entertaining games theyve played in a while, even if it doesnt "look" as good as other titles.
Post by: cyberg4 on November 30, 2005, 11:29:00 AM
.As for me I will continue enjoying PD0, I Love the multiplayer, It's awesome. (onslaught on tower)
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 11:33:00 AM
QUOTE(cyberg4 @ Nov 30 2005, 01:36 PM)
There are two types of gamers in this world, PC gamers, and console gamers.
Your forgot the third type, they are called gamers. Yup thats me, I play PC games, Gamecube games, PS2 games, XBOX games, but I have a problem with this next-gen that doesnt seem very next-gen. It is nothing more than polished up current-gen IMO.
Post by: cyberg4 on November 30, 2005, 11:35:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 11:40 AM)
Your forgot the third type, they are called gamers. Yup thats me, I play PC games, Gamecube games, PS2 games, XBOX games, but I have a problem with this next-gen that doesnt seem very next-gen. It is nothing more than polished up current-gen IMO.
whoops forgot that group, post edited
Edit: As for the Next gen not being all that "next gen" I was originally in that group, and still am in some ways (even though I have a 360), but the current games are great and it's only going to get better, better physics (Oblivion), amazing graphics (Gears of War), AI, Destructability, etc.
Post by: LowProfileWurm on November 30, 2005, 11:37:00 AM
I would like to say though: if you haven't tried Geometry Wars, I suggest you blow the 5 bucks on it. It's great.
And I'm gonna have to try out Condemned. You guys are really making it sound awesome!
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2005, 11:55:00 AM
anyway, im up to a part in condemned that made me shut off the console because it looked and moved so real it was eerie. cant wait to get scared tonight!
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 11:55:00 AM
QUOTE(cyberg4 @ Nov 30 2005, 01:42 PM)
whoops forgot that group, post edited
Edit: As for the Next gen not being all that "next gen" I was originally in that group, and still am in some ways (even though I have a 360), but the current games are great and it's only going to get better, better physics (Oblivion), amazing graphics (Gears of War), AI, Destructability, etc.
I hope we will see that stuff. Yes, Gears of War does look amazing, but these launch games are just hurting my impression on the next-gen. I doubt I will get either a PS3 or an xbox 360. I'm leaning towards the revolution because nintendo knows what matters the most. Games being..............well games. M$ and $ony are just playing a stupid graphics war while nintendo is going to change the way we play games and change is good IMO.
The way I see it, and many other don't, but thats ok, is that if I want great graphics I will play PC games. If I want a game for the enjoyment of it being a game, I will probably buy a Revolution. Honestly, there is a reason why I still play games such as Mario on the NES, SNES, N64, and I can sure as hell tell you it isnt because of how good it looks.
Post by: Deftech on November 30, 2005, 12:26:00 PM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 30 2005, 02:02 PM)
im done debating sorry about getting carried away.
anyway, im up to a part in condemned that made me shut off the console because it looked and moved so real it was eerie. cant wait to get scared tonight!
Hahaha
I saw you wuss out last week so I can hear your sayiing "Oh Hell No" -hits eject-, Hahahaha. 15 minutes later I shat myself remember? Creepy game indeed!!
Post by: Carlo210 on November 30, 2005, 03:39:00 PM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 08:02 PM)
Honestly, there is a reason why I still play games such as Mario on the NES, SNES, N64, and I can sure as hell tell you it isnt because of how good it looks.
Then why do you keep referring to games not looking next-gen on the next gen console if what matter most to you is gameplay? Many of the Xbox 360 launch titles play great, and if that's what is important to you, why are you put-down by your opinion of the games looking lackluster in the graphics dept?
As I hear, Kameo plays great and is reminiscent of the Mario/platformer days with a mix of kickassness, and many other launch games are getting feedback of being just plain fun.
Post by: Deftech on November 30, 2005, 04:38:00 PM
Post by: Xombe on November 30, 2005, 04:42:00 PM
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 04:55:00 PM
QUOTE(Carlo210 @ Nov 30 2005, 05:46 PM)
Then why do you keep referring to games not looking next-gen on the next gen console if what matter most to you is gameplay?
Because you expect certain things when a new generation is released. If the games have no next-gen gameplay then they better have next-gen graphics and they just don't seem to have either IMO.
QUOTE
Many of the Xbox 360 launch titles play great, and if that's what is important to you, why are you put-down by your opinion of the games looking lackluster in the graphics dept?
Many of the launch games play like a computer game, I already have a computer. I also hear that many games don't play very well, like every sports game.
QUOTE
As I hear, Kameo plays great and is reminiscent of the Mario/platformer days with a mix of kickassness, and many other launch games are getting feedback of being just plain fun.
Well, the ones I have played are not that fun.
Xombe - sorry I wont derail the thread
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 30, 2005, 05:50:00 PM
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.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 06:39:00 PM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 30 2005, 07:57 PM)
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.
Ok then. The PS2 and the emotion engine was unfamiliar to devs and a pain in the ass to utilize at all. The first gen games looked like crap and they still do to this day. Look at MGS2 and then MGS3, the graphics are not that much better. I'm not saying there is no difference, but it is not as big as you people make it out to be.
Post by: hugoboss1 on November 30, 2005, 07:22:00 PM
yeah the pc this the pc that. Its all about comfort to me...the only complaint I can have about the 360 is that the headset isnt wireless....im not concerned about the games because they arent even scracting the surface yet. With the HD era knocking on the door most people will trade the office for the tv,gaming ,media center expirience. The way the 360 seems to be going we will soon be able to do every thing you can do on a Pc email shooping online using search engines you get the drift....any ways i thought i would throw in my 2 cents or three or four.....blah blah i know.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 30, 2005, 08:15:00 PM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 30 2005, 06:46 PM)
Ok then. The PS2 and the emotion engine was unfamiliar to devs and a pain in the ass to utilize at all. The first gen games looked like crap and they still do to this day. Look at MGS2 and then MGS3, the graphics are not that much better. I'm not saying there is no difference, but it is not as big as you people make it out to be.
The ps2 is a good example, but still not the learning curve the 3-core cpu will be, in terms of utilization.
But, you are comparing later generation games to eachother. MGS2 was much better, graphically, then any 1st gen ps2 game. Compared to mgs3, the difference is minimal.
Lets compare 1st gen ps2 games to god of war, shall we. There is quite a bit of difference, much more then any 1st gen xbox game compared to it's current gen.
QUOTE
Also does the Premium pack have a PC moniter out? (is it VGA or RGB bleh I always forget which one) If not then you also need to add a few extra bucks into your equation.
You're right,
360: $400
PC CRT monitor: $400
vga cable:$40
Total: $840
Few, glad we fixed that.
QUOTE
Excluding of course the fact that PC games are easily modded. Which greatly increases your gaming per buck ratio as game mods are FREE! Hell if it werent for game mods I would have played HL2 a total of 9 hours, but with all the mods it has, from The Hidden, Dystopia, Garrysmod etc I have probably played over 80 hours.
Very true.
But in time, the 360 will be hacked, and you'll be able to mod the 360 games, like i have with games for the xbox.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on November 30, 2005, 09:24:00 PM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 30 2005, 10:22 PM)
But, you are comparing later generation games to eachother. MGS2 was much better, graphically, then any 1st gen ps2 game. Compared to mgs3, the difference is minimal.
Lets compare 1st gen ps2 games to god of war, shall we. There is quite a bit of difference, much more then any 1st gen xbox game compared to it's current gen.
I used MGS as an example based on a time frame. The xbox also only had a what, a 3.5-4 year shelf life before its next system. So if, like you said All it was was a console stuffed with off the shelf pc parts. So, it was pretty much tapped out on day one. Shouldnt the PS2, being the pain that it was, have some leeway?
Halo
Release Date: Nov 14, 2001
Halo 2
Release Date: Nov 9, 2004
MGS 2
Release Date: Nov 12, 2001
MGS 3
Release Date: Nov 17, 2004
Now do you see why I used the MGS's as an example for the PS2?
If that is not good enough try this one.
SSX Release Date: Oct 30, 2000
SSX On Tour Release Date: Oct 11, 2005
Like I have said, there is a difference, but it is not that big.
QUOTE
The ps2 is a good example, but still not the learning curve the 3-core cpu will be, in terms of utilization.
Now hold on, the PS2 has been around for 5 to almost 6 years and it is still not utilized very well. I think the PS2 was the best example. If M$ is only going to have a 4-5 year lifespan and somehow the utilization of the CPU will be harder than it was for PS2, will we even see it before their next system?
Post by: Carlo210 on November 30, 2005, 09:27:00 PM
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.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 30, 2005, 10:12:00 PM
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.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on December 01, 2005, 08:14:00 AM
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
Post by: KAGE360 on December 01, 2005, 08:21:00 AM
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.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on December 01, 2005, 08:32:00 AM
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............
Post by: KAGE360 on December 01, 2005, 08:42:00 AM
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.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on December 01, 2005, 08:44:00 AM
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
Post by: KAGE360 on December 01, 2005, 08:48:00 AM
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
Post by: asnpcwiz on December 01, 2005, 09:21:00 AM
Post by: LowProfileWurm on December 01, 2005, 09:43:00 AM
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...
Post by: deftonesmx17 on December 01, 2005, 09:43:00 AM
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?
Post by: LowProfileWurm on December 01, 2005, 09:59:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Dec 1 2005, 12:50 PM)
Wurm : I don't get why you quoted me in your sig?
Post by: deftonesmx17 on December 01, 2005, 10:09:00 AM
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
Post by: LowProfileWurm on December 01, 2005, 10:14:00 AM
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.
QUOTE
PS: as if this doesnt have nerd written all over it
Too true! But at least he has friends. Post by: deftonesmx17 on December 01, 2005, 10:15:00 AM
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
Post by: Deftech on December 01, 2005, 10:18:00 AM
Post by: deftonesmx17 on December 01, 2005, 10:26:00 AM
QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Dec 1 2005, 12:21 PM)
you have an overlying negative point of view on consoles and their games, especially in the progressive instance.
I wonder why. I ask you this, how many classics, not just good or great games have come out in the past five years. Ten years ago any gamer was considered a nerd, dork, geek, etc. Now that games are mainstream the quality dropped off because only one thing matters..............the almighty dollar. What will bring in the most profits, not what gamers really want, but what the mainstream wants. Its kinda like how the radio sucks if you are a true music lover because the radio only plays the same mainstream crap and forgets about all of the untapped talent out there.
Post by: Deftech on December 01, 2005, 10:26:00 AM
QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Dec 1 2005, 12:29 PM)
You see...Deftech agrees with me...some things never get old.
the master debater will comment with how immature I am for laughing at the term "sauage"
mwuahahahaha
Post by: deftonesmx17 on December 01, 2005, 10:30:00 AM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Dec 1 2005, 12:33 PM)
the master debater will comment with how immature I am for laughing at the term "sauage"
Really, I don't seem to recall doing or even thinking about commenting on your post...........until now
Post by: LowProfileWurm on December 01, 2005, 10:34:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Dec 1 2005, 01:33 PM)
I wonder why. I ask you this, how many classics, not just good or great games have come out in the past five years. Ten years ago any gamer was considered a nerd, dork, geek, etc. Now that games are mainstream the quality dropped off because only one thing matters..............the almighty dollar. What will bring in the most profits, not what gamers really want, but what the mainstream wants. Its kinda like how the radio sucks if you are a true music lover because the radio only plays the same mainstream crap and forgets about all of the untapped talent out there.
Nooone's making any 'classic' cars right now because they just want to make money... but in 15 years, we might see poeple calling a 2005 Mustang a 'classic'. It just depends on what nostalgia is sturred up as time passes. But for now, I'm all about fun, and I don't care if a game isn't 'classic' right now. I'll go play Zelda when Revolution comes out, but I'm not about to pop in Halo for some nostalgia. In 10 years I will, but not now
Post by: deftonesmx17 on December 01, 2005, 10:43:00 AM
QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Dec 1 2005, 12:41 PM)
Classics are "Classics" because they were first. They were the pioneers. They have earned the respect that only time grants. I'll use your music example. Hendrix, the Beatles, Dylan... 'Classic' rock artists. What they play on the radio is garbage. Noones pioneering anymore, at least not that we can see right now. Hindsight is 20-20.
Nooone's making any 'classic' cars right now because they just want to make money... but in 15 years, we might see poeple calling a 2005 Mustang a 'classic'. It just depends on what nostalgia is sturred up as time passes. But for now, I'm all about fun, and I don't care if a game isn't 'classic' right now. I'll go play Zelda when Revolution comes out, but I'm not about to pop in Halo for some nostalgia. In 10 years I will, but not now
You took the term classic in the wrong context. I meant it in this form.
Classic - a creation of the highest excellence
Post by: LowProfileWurm on December 01, 2005, 10:48:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Dec 1 2005, 01:50 PM)
You took the term classic in the wrong context. I meant it in this form.
Classic - a creation of the highest excellence
Besides, you're bonkers if you think Nintendo made Mario were it not for the paycheck.
Post by: KAGE360 on December 01, 2005, 10:53:00 AM
Post by: asnpcwiz on December 01, 2005, 12:40:00 PM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Dec 1 2005, 12:33 PM)
the master debater will comment with how immature I am for laughing at the term "sauage"
mwuahahahaha
CLASSIC!!! Hahahahahaaha