Unreal Tournament 3 Unreal Tournament 3

Since 1816 Days

2006-01-04 04:55:46 In reply to SimonM7 (2006-01-03 11:18:33)

Posted by SimonM7

The POWER of the PC will always be superior within a year, but you'll never be playing games on the same level. That's largely because they're not streamlined to run games, have a memory gobbling OS always running in the background, and the fact that games are always developed with at least two year OLDER machines in mind with fluffy shader stuff added on top.

What do you mean with not playing on the same level? I'm already playing games on the same level as the Xbox 360 on my PC, and that's not even a super high-end PC anymore.. It's a P4 3.4Ghz, 2GB, 6800GT 256MB PC that can display games like CoD2 and Quake4 with the same quality as a Xbox 360 on a HDTV can, even better when I up the resolution and use of AA and AF more.. Sure, a Xbox 360 is way more efficient with what it's got, but that's why high-end gaming PC's for example have way more system- and videomemory.. The Xbox 360 has 512MB of combined memory, where my PC has 2GB of systemmemory and 256MB of videomemory (and there's already 512MB videocards available as you probably know).. And then I'm not even mentioning dual-core processors or the use of SLI videocard setups that PC games are starting to make use of..

So when the PS3 launches in the USA and Europe (end of 2006?) it will most likely already be a bit obsolete compared to the best you can get in the PC-world at that time.. Biggest advantage of consoles is though that every 5 years orso you can buy yourself a gaming platform equal to a very high-end PC for a lot less money..

I have my PC to play mostly FPS and RTS games on, and I have my Xbox (soon to be Xbox 360) to play typical console games on my big widescreen TV on the couch (mostly racing, platform, fighting and sports games etc).. The PC and Xbox kindof complete my whole gamingexperience, but in raw graphical power my PC always wins easily (consoles can only keep up the 1st year after release, like now with the Xbox 360)..

---
www.cyberwarriors.nl

Since 1201 Days

2006-01-04 22:25:18

The stuff you speak of is plain PC ports and they're first generation Xbox 360 titles developed largely without a final dev kit.

Games for PC are NEVER developed with the latest hardware in mind. NEVER. If you think you'll be playing games on your PC that compare graphically to 360 titles in a couple of months, you're sadly mistaken. Just wait and see.

---
An Elegant Tapestry of Aphorisms - The musings of a brilliant self proclaimed gaming philosopher.
http://aetoa.blogspot.com

Since 1816 Days

2006-01-05 01:01:27 In reply to SimonM7 (2006-01-04 22:25:18)

Posted by SimonM7

To be honest I think it's you that is wrong here.. You somehow think next-gen consoles like the Xbox 360 and PS3 are some kind of supermachines that can do more then high-end PC's.. If you think that, you are living a lie..

The newest PC games already use all the same stuff you now see in next-gen console games (HDR lighting, motion blur, depth of field, DX9 shaders, and things like AA & AF etc), and in 2 years time orso PC games will already use stuff (DX10 etc) that the next-gen consoles of today can't even do anymore (because they are build on 2005 DX9 tech).. And because not everybody has a super high-end PC, PC games are very scalable with you being able to set any details you want.. In consolegames scalability is not needed as every console is the same so games can always be set at the max the system can handle..

Also, consolegames have never shown anything a high-end PC of the same periode couldn't do, and this is not gonna change all of a sudden with this next-gen of consoles.. I challenge you to name me 1 upcoming next-gen console game that cannot be run on a high-end PC? And just for the record, if a consolegame is not ported to the PC that doesn't mean the PC can't run it..

Like I said, the main advantage of gameconsoles is that they are much cheaper (and that they are much easier to handle for casual gamers that don't like all the hassle on PC's with drivers, settings and tweaks etc etc).. Every 5 years orso you can buy yourself a gamingmachine equivalent to a very high-end PC for a lot less money.. But they are not supermachines with some special abilities a high-end PC cannot do, simply get that out of your head plz.. ;)

Seriously, in just a few years time the latest PC hardware and graphics will be way ahead again of what the ATI & Nividia GPU's in the Xbox 360 and PS3 can do.. And then in 2009/2010 orso it's time for the Xbox and PS to catch up again with a new generation.. That's just how it goes with PC v consoles..

---
www.cyberwarriors.nl

Since 1201 Days

2006-01-05 01:23:26

See, you're not reading my posts right (you're certainly not alone).

It's irrelevant whether a PC can do more or not when nobody taps that power.

---
An Elegant Tapestry of Aphorisms - The musings of a brilliant self proclaimed gaming philosopher.
http://aetoa.blogspot.com

Myro

Since 1106 Days

2006-01-05 01:29:42

my PC should be able to hadle it (ati X800XT graphics card)

---
I am the pwnage

Since 1816 Days

2006-01-05 01:44:54

Posted by SimonM7

See, you're not reading my posts right (you're certainly not alone).

It's irrelevant whether a PC can do more or not when nobody taps that power.

You mean PC games don't use all the features that the latest PC hardware is capable off? And consolegames are?

That's not true aswell, because PC games are using all the latest features.. The newest PC games have all used a lot of latest DX9 etc features like HDR, motion blur, depth of field, bump- and normalmapping, specular lighting.. And stuff like AA & AF has been used for a long time now.. All things we only start seeying on consoles now that the Xbox 360 is here.. PC games are even starting to make use of dual-core processors now..

The biggest thing they promote now with the new consoles is High Definition.. That's nothing more then higher resolution display, something that has been arround in PC gaming for ages already (I play all my PC games at 1280x1024).. The Xbox 360 (or PS3 for that matter) is really nothing more then the equivalent of a very high-end PC build for gaming and some extra multimedia functions, which you can buy for only 399,-- (or 299,-- even)..

Posted by Myro

my PC should be able to hadle it (ati X800XT graphics card)

My 6800GT aswell probably, but not with max detail at 1280x1024 I'm affraid.. But we'll see.. If needed I can always upgrade to a 7800 (or whatever faster is available when UT2007 is released on the PC).. I already have a PCI-E system, so that no problem..

---
www.cyberwarriors.nl

Since 1201 Days

2006-01-05 01:54:35

Yes, the latest effects are used, refered to in my post as;

"...fluffy shader stuff added on top."

That still doesn't mean they touch console games visually. You're obviously very keen on your PC and you spent a bucketload of money on it, but that doesn't change fact. Anyone can tell you that there are two major things holding PCs back and that's the OS and compatibility issues. Look into PC development and try to look past your bias.

Doom 3 on Xbox gets some flak because it's not quite as high poly as the PC version, but if you look at what the Xbox does with such crazy amounts of LESS power, it's completely mind boggling that it looks that similar. Even things like Far Cry and Splinter Cell compare to their respective PC versions, even though PC hardware is supposedly so cutting edge.

Never once do I claim that PC hardware isn't more POWERFUL on paper and in practice, but games - and anyone will tell you this - aren't developed with the latest tools as base. It's fact, deal with it.

---
An Elegant Tapestry of Aphorisms - The musings of a brilliant self proclaimed gaming philosopher.
http://aetoa.blogspot.com

Since 1177 Days

2006-01-05 01:59:11

PC's within a year will be more powerful than the XBox 360 and the PS3...its common sense. They are upgradable unlike consoles...

---
What the deuce?!

Since 1201 Days

2006-01-05 02:04:11

YAAY! LET'S ALL READ SIMON'S POSTS AND NOT GET THE POINT!

---
An Elegant Tapestry of Aphorisms - The musings of a brilliant self proclaimed gaming philosopher.
http://aetoa.blogspot.com

Since 1177 Days

2006-01-05 02:06:15

So what your trying to say Simun is that PC's aren't used to their full potential and that consoles are pushed to the max and can do what most people think is impossible? (graphics, etc...)

---
What the deuce?!

Since 1816 Days

2006-01-05 02:26:04 In reply to SimonM7 (2006-01-05 01:54:35)

Posted by SimonM7

You're kindof contradicting yourself.. First you say that PC games can't touch consolegames visually, and then you say consolegames look the same just with low detailed textures etc..

Only thing that's correct is that gameconsoles can do the same with less, that's true, but that doesn't make them better.. And that's what you are saying, that consolegames look better..

So what makes you thing PC games cannot touch consolegames visually? What are the features of those consolegames then that make them look better than PC games?

I'm not biased at all, I'm objective.. I play both PC and consolegames alike.. And Imho consolegames never look better then any new AAA PC game on a high-end PC.. I cannot think of a single consolegame, not even on Xbox 360 (although it comes close when played on a HDTV for the time being), that looks better then say Half-Life2(lost coast), FEAR, Guild Wars, Battlefield2, Call of Duty2, Age of Empires3 or Quake4 (just to name a few) at 1280x1024 (or even higher res) with max detail and 4xAA and 8xAF on the PC.. Even if those were not developed with a AMD X2-4800 or FX57, 2+GB, Nividia 7800GTX 512MB 2x in SLI as base, they sure can make use of it..

---
www.cyberwarriors.nl

Since 1201 Days

2006-01-05 02:45:32

Yes, Critx, that's what I'm saying.

Inflatable; I was comparing games that came out very late in the Xbox's lifecycle when the PC was supposedly a ton better, tech wise. And they were, but that didn't show a huge deal in what kind of graphics the games produced. Lost Coast is a snazzed out version of Half Life (which is done fair justice on Xbox in its original form by the way, tech considered) and it's a kind of snaz that the 360 has as its middle name.

Resolution isn't really a fair thing to bring up in regards to Xbox games either, since they were still developed mainly for TV resolutions. (though like 5 games are 720p on that console) When you develop games for consoles, and this will always be the case as long as console hardware is fixed, you have one platform you work with. One consistent platform that you can optimize code for. You know that if you use a certain engine/effects as base, that's going to work across all of the user base. This is a huge deal, because when PC devs do their PC thing, they have to consider people with 2 year old systems, even older in some cases, and that holds visuals back. You've still got some stuff that you can add on top as toggleable effects and such, but they are just that, fluffy stuff added on top.

If resolution means a great deal to you and always has, then I suppose Quake 4 is a tremendous step up from something like Doom 3 on Xbox, but it still speaks volumes that the Xbox which runs hardware from 2002 can still basically compete with a 2005 game. No PC game from 2002 does that.

---
An Elegant Tapestry of Aphorisms - The musings of a brilliant self proclaimed gaming philosopher.
http://aetoa.blogspot.com

Since 1816 Days

2006-01-05 03:18:25 In reply to SimonM7 (2006-01-05 02:45:32)

Posted by SimonM7

You kindof lost me here.. Now what's competing with what? PC 2002 games with Xbox 2005 games? I don't get it anymore what you're trying to say here..

HL2 on the Xbox looks the same as it would on a high-end PC from 2002, playing at 640x480, in DX7, with textures etc set to low.. So what's your point?

Any Xbox game from 2005 (or any year for that matter) cannot compete with any PC game from 2005.. It's DX7 v DX9.. It's like saying CS 1.6 can compete with CS:S graphicalwise, that CS:S is just CS 1.6 with 'fully stuff added on top' running in a higher resolution.. Well, thank you for stating the obvious, that's the whole deal with gamegraphics, to make games look better they add 'fluffy stuff on top', and you can play at higher resolutions.. ;)

---
www.cyberwarriors.nl

Since 1177 Days

2006-01-05 03:30:09

^^ Actually Chaos Theory competes with PC's in terms of graphics...thank you for reminding me of that :)

---
What the deuce?!

Since 1201 Days

2006-01-05 03:36:50

"You kindof lost me here.. Now what's competing with what? PC 2002 games with Xbox 2005 games? I don't get it anymore what you're trying to say here.."

Since PC hardware is always evolving I think it's fair that Xbox 2005 games compete with PC 2002 games since that's when PC and Xbox hardware were comparable. As you can see I haven't directly compared any 2002 PC games to 2005 Xbox games however. Mainly the hardware.

"HL2 on the Xbox looks the same as it would on a high-end PC from 2002, playing at 640x480, in DX7, with textures etc set to low.. So what's your point?"

That IS my point. HL2 is developed and released 2004, two years after the PC/Xbox that could make it look like that was released. You've managed to see my point without noticing.

To sum it up, it takes about 2 years before that PC hardware is even used as a base for development like I've been saying for the past three or so posts. Splinter Cell came out on PC and Xbox at roughly the same time and was visually comparable to the best PC games at that time. The Xbox version was lacking in resolution but little else, despite the fact that the hardware is so much older.

That is my whole point and continues to be with the 360. Games will be produced on the 360 with the 360 hardware as base for development long before PC developers use TODAY'S PC hardware to that extent, and development on PC will lag behind for at least 2 years as usual. Then we'll see stuff even out, but still, OS and compatibility issues will even then hold stuff back, but it'll be less significant then since PC hardware will have surpassed consoles again.

---
An Elegant Tapestry of Aphorisms - The musings of a brilliant self proclaimed gaming philosopher.
http://aetoa.blogspot.com

Since 1816 Days

2006-01-05 06:59:49 In reply to SimonM7 (2006-01-05 03:36:50)

Posted by SimonM7

Ok, but that still doesn't make consolegames look better then PC games, which you keep on implying.. Xbox 2005 games don't look better then 2002 PC games, they look simular.. And comparing 2002 PC games to 2005 Xbox games doesn't make sense in this discussion.. Only when you're trying to create simular hardwaresituations, which is not the point here.. The point here is if console or PC games look better at any given point in time on the best hardware a console or PC have to offer at that time..

If you compare PC and consolegames on a year to year basis, the consolegames never look better.. Only in the 1st (maybe 2) year after a next-gen console release consolegames look simular to PC games of the same year, and after that 1st 1-2 years the PC starts to look better again because the PC hardware gets more powerfull again.. PC games from 2002 look simular to Xbox games from 2002, but PC games from 2005 look *a lot* better then Xbox games from 2005.. That's because PC hardware gets stronger constantly, and not just once every 5 years like a gameconsole.. And no matter how much optimazation they can pull out of a console's hardware over the years, it will never be able to beat the raw power of newer and faster PC hardware.. And the 2 year lagging behind for optimazation on PC games obviously also goes for consoles as the 1st generation of consolegames never use 100% of the console's power..

Like I said, consoles are much cheaper, and give a easier more casual gamingexperience.. That's their place in the market.. They cannot compete with PC graphics for more then 1 maybe 2 years after a so-called next-gen launch.. But there's nothing wrong with that, because they are so much cheaper and last for upto 5 years, where keeping your PC uptodate is a lot more expensive and has to be done every 2-3 years if you want to keep playing the lastest games at high res with max detail..

---
www.cyberwarriors.nl

Since 1201 Days

2006-01-05 13:23:35

Name a PC game from 2002 that a 2005 Xbox game doesn't beat graphically and I'll give you a bisquit.

"They cannot compete with PC graphics for more then 1 maybe 2 years after a so-called next-gen launch."

Make that 2 and I'll largely agree. Of course I still think God of War beats anything on the PC graphically, but that has more to do with art direction and clever use of design than tech superiority

---
An Elegant Tapestry of Aphorisms - The musings of a brilliant self proclaimed gaming philosopher.
http://aetoa.blogspot.com

Since 1816 Days

2006-01-06 01:12:32 In reply to SimonM7 (2006-01-05 13:23:35)

Posted by SimonM7

Name a PC game from 2002 that a 2005 Xbox game doesn't beat graphically and I'll give you a bisquit.

Hmmz, let me think.. What was released for PC in 2002? Ohyeah, I got it.. Battlefield 1942 is a nice example.. See: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/battlefield1942/screenindex.html
Or UT2003, see: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/unrealtournament2003/screenindex.html

Nothing on the Xbox from any year (2005 incl.) looks better, maybe simular (like Halo2 etc), but not better.. Reason = same old DX7 tech..

Thanks for the bisquit.. ;)

Posted by SimonM7

"They cannot compete with PC graphics for more then 1 maybe 2 years after a so-called next-gen launch."

Make that 2 and I'll largely agree. Of course I still think God of War beats anything on the PC graphically, but that has more to do with art direction and clever use of design than tech superiority

Oh really? I don't think so.. Sure GoW looks really good, but it will not look better then say UT2007 on a high-end PC.. Completly same engine etc.. And I could name a few other just as good looking games coming out for PC in 2006..

Next-gen launch, 1-2 years simular to PC games on high-end PC's, then worse again until next-gen launch again.. But never better then PC.. Cheap though, 1-2 years of high-end PC graphics for only 399,--..

---
www.cyberwarriors.nl

Since 1177 Days

2006-01-06 01:55:58

^^ Bullshit...BF1942 could have easily been done on Xbox...those graphics suck ass. Look at this:

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2002/pc/act/battlefield1942/1942_screen005.jpg

And UT2003 could have been done also....seeing as how it looks very similar to Halo 1's graphics...actually, Halo looked better..and it was a 2001 game for crying out loud..

---
What the deuce?!

Since 1816 Days

2006-01-06 05:34:28 In reply to Critx (2006-01-06 01:55:58)

Posted by Critx

Sure BF1942 could have been done on Xbox.. As a matter of fact, it has kindof been done, it's called BF2:MC..
Here: http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2005/230/920759_20050819_screen010.jpg
That's 2005 BF2:MC on Xbox for ya.. Do you really think that looks so much better then BF19242 on the PC back in 2002, I mean texturewise etc? Clearly not huh..

And Halo that looks better then UT2003, sure.. I think not.. Maybe you should start playing on high-end PC's aswell so you can get rid of the idea that gameconsoles are some kind of 300-400 bucks gaming wonder machines that can do better then any high-end PC of the same time can.. I have tried to wake you guys out of that dream, but obviously I can't.. You guys really now sound like slightly ignorant gameconsole fanboys to me..

At least I'm trying to be objective here, and I know what I'm talking about having played games for over 10 years on many consoles and (most of the time) high-end PC's.. I'm not a PC or console only gamer that thinks his platform beats everything else, but I know from experience nothing beats the PC when it comes to graphics etc, it's just that to achieve that you need to invest a whole lot more money into the system then just buying a 300-400 dollar gameconsole.. Maybe it's time you guys got objective and started to see that aswell? Or maybe not, and stay a gameconsole fanboy believing your next-gen console can outdo anything outthere incl. high-end PC's.. Whatever you want.. Like I said, I give up on this one.. ;)

---
www.cyberwarriors.nl

Since 1177 Days

2006-01-06 06:15:20

^^ I never said that a consoles are better than a high-end PC...not once. Im simply saying the games that you showed have been suceeded by Xbox games (visually). And No sorry, I dont feel like spending thousands of dollars just to get "better graphics"...its stupid. I'd rather spend a couple hundred every few years...but that makes me a fanboy right? Grow up...

---
What the deuce?!

Since 1201 Days

2006-01-06 11:34:45

Unreal Championship 2 trashes UT2003 visually with its pinky finger.

I AM objective and I'm saying over and over that PCs are more powerful and from a texture/resolution standpoint have always been superior. (Although that is an unfair comparison since TV res games look PANTS on a monitor and PC games have always been built for one, whereas you get no gain from higher res games on a normal telly.)

I've already made my arguments as clear as possible and I think my point has come across to the people whom my point COULD come across, so I'll just leave it at that.

---
An Elegant Tapestry of Aphorisms - The musings of a brilliant self proclaimed gaming philosopher.
http://aetoa.blogspot.com

PlumbDrumb

Still drinking PlumbDrumb - Still drinking

Since 1172 Days

2006-01-06 16:28:56 In reply to SimonM7 (2006-01-06 11:34:45)

Posted by SimonM7

Unreal Championship 2 trashes UT2003 visually with its pinky finger.

You know, I was going to point that out too, but I wanted to stay out of this :D

Like Simon said, aside from texture and screen resolution, there are many Xbox games that rival some high end PC games, graphically.
I think F.E.A.R was the true beginning of where the Xbox ends, and high end PC graphics begin again, for lack of better wording.

Then again, maybe with a lot of work, they could get F.E.A.R running on the XBOX.
(but that would be like saying Condemned could be the same on the Xbox, which I highly doubt)

I gotta tell ya, if it weren't for the UT series, I probably wouldn't even play any major titles on my PC anymore.
That's just my personal position though.

Speaking of PC performance, check this mother of badboys out! -
http://www.slizone.com/object/slizone_quadsli.html
Quad SLI!!!

More info on that tech here -
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=195

---
drunk :(