-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Boycott!! Game companies just aren't treating us right
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
techwanabe
Diamond Member
wow... You all are really dating yourselves. But it's kind of nice in a way. On some forums, people are fondly remembering their first computer games which are only 5 or 6 years old.
I played Sundog back in 1985 and 86 on my Atari 520ST. I also had a Commodore 64 which I played alot of the old Atari classics on in 1983 (in college I might add). Yes, I used to play M.U.L.E. on it when I went to my sisters house. She and her husband turned me on to that game and it was usually a family event. Hunting the WUMPUS was always hard cause he was hard to see!
My first computer game was Adventure on the California State Univ Sacramento mainframe (Colossal Cave)
I played Sundog back in 1985 and 86 on my Atari 520ST. I also had a Commodore 64 which I played alot of the old Atari classics on in 1983 (in college I might add). Yes, I used to play M.U.L.E. on it when I went to my sisters house. She and her husband turned me on to that game and it was usually a family event. Hunting the WUMPUS was always hard cause he was hard to see!
My first computer game was Adventure on the California State Univ Sacramento mainframe (Colossal Cave)
richleader
Golden Member
<< Just look at the software, the reason DOA3 isn't on PC is because very few (if ANY) PC's are capable of those kind of graphics. >>
I'm sure DOA3 could be done on a pc with the same specs as the xbox, it isn't all that complicated. That said, although it would be a pretty screen saver, the game is pretty much crap. Get yourself a gamepad and download some CPS2 Roms and play Marvel Vs. Capcom.
But me, I'll stick with the PC. Xbox games have to be sold at $50 period while I can pick up great bargain bin games for the PC for $10. Maybe the graphics in stuff like Elite Force or No one lives forever aren't up there, but I can play at 1280x760 with 4x FSAA and anisotropic filtering. 🙂
That said, driving games are hurting right now, especially if you're not into nascar/f1, you're right.
CZroe
Lifer
<< 'm sure DOA3 could be done on a pc with the same specs as the xbox, it isn't all that complicated >>
Well, sorry, but you are wrong. PC's are not capable of those graphics quite yet, although a new GF4 machine is close.
Apparenty, it is too complicated for you to understand.
Once again, a PC has WAY too many bottlenecks for those kind of graphics. Even on current top-of-the-line hardware.
You guys give these consoles waaaaay too much credit. The only thing they have over us is their proprietariness(sp?) and the Xbox doesn't even have that. If the Xbox is not a windows system then what is its OS? As far as I know Nvidia doesn't have its own API like 3dfx had with glide. As much rave as Tekken tag and GT3 got do you not think it would not looks just as good if not better on a real gamers pc? GT3 wouldn't even max out a Radeon32DDR.
<< You guys give these consoles waaaaay too much credit. The only thing they have over us is their proprietariness(sp?) and the Xbox doesn't even have that. If the Xbox is not a windows system then what is its OS? As far as I know Nvidia doesn't have its own API like 3dfx had with glide. As much rave as Tekken tag and GT3 got do you not think it would not looks just as good if not better on a real gamers pc? GT3 wouldn't even max out a Radeon32DDR. >>
Nvidia uses DX. Always has. They made that decision in the Riva 128 days for less problems in the long run. Being a Windows system is different from having a Windows kernel on the system. I wouldn't start calling the PS2 a Linux machine.
CZRoe makes very good points.
Game consoles are computers made and optimized for one thing: games. They never change and are thus easier to program for and optimize for because every console is the same. What works for one console will work for another. This does not happen with PC's.
Bottlenecks are the key here as CZRoe says. Yes, you could get around these bottlenecks, but it would take a lot of effort, and even then the end result wouldn't necessarily be good. PC's are good because they offer expandibility and do many types of games better than consoles (FPS, RPG's, anything online).
You really make it sound like the PC is a DC in terms of game support. If you like sports games, consoles are the way to go. Fantasy (Final Fantasy) RPG's, same. But just like you could say, GT3 would be great on a PC, so would Nascar Racing on a console.
Me, I'm happy with a PC and an X-Box, but if I couldn't afford to upgrade my PC I would easily choose a console over a PC.
Dude, in case you didn't know Microsoft make many companies agree to only make an Xbox version so that they can collect liscense fees (afterall, they take a royalty on every Xbox game sold; no such royalty is paid for Windows games. they're going to sell Windows anyways because people do things other than game on it, so lack of games on windows isn't going to hurt sales. it's in their best interest for all the games to be on xbox).
Also, just frickin buy the consoles. You can buy ALL 3 of them (heck throw in Dreamcast too for 4 of them since they're so cheap) for less than you'd pay for a computer powerful enough to run what they can. You end up getting a larger game selection and more toys to play with (and save some cash on your computer since you need need that high end graphics card and such).
Also, just frickin buy the consoles. You can buy ALL 3 of them (heck throw in Dreamcast too for 4 of them since they're so cheap) for less than you'd pay for a computer powerful enough to run what they can. You end up getting a larger game selection and more toys to play with (and save some cash on your computer since you need need that high end graphics card and such).
richleader
Golden Member
<< Apparenty, it is too complicated for you to understand. >>
Oh please, it's all in the pixel and vertex shaders. I'm sure an equivalent Geforce 3 system could do it fine at 640X480 with 2x fsaa on. Really, it's not like the AI in DOA3 is eating up any cycles. It's just virtua fighter with tighter meshes and high res textures.
<<
<< Apparenty, it is too complicated for you to understand. >>
Oh please, it's all in the pixel and vertex shaders. I'm sure an equivalent Geforce 3 system could do it fine at 640X480 with 2x fsaa on. Really, it's not like the AI in DOA3 is eating up any cycles. It's just virtua fighter with tighter meshes and high res textures. >>
If it was that easy, then Halo would be out alrieady. And EA wouldn't have to port last year's versions of their sports games as this years versions.
richleader
Golden Member
<< If it was that easy, then Halo would be out alrieady. And EA wouldn't have to port last year's versions of their sports games as this years versions. >>
I'm sure legal stuff and red tape and time constraints are the issue in the latter, and as for the former, have they even released all the multiplayer features they promised for the PC on the Xbox yet? That said, Halo is pushing it, they better get that out for the PC before the next generation of Unreal's come out if they want to make any extra sales.
EdipisReks
Platinum Member
heh. a friend of mine is a console only gamer, and when i showed him screenshots of Unreal II he about crapped his pants. yeah, HALO is a good looking game, but look at HALO and Unreal II screenshots next to each other. it's night and day. anyone who thinks that a high end PC can't produce graphics similar to and better than a console is full of it.
--jacob
--jacob
CZroe
Lifer
EdipisRex:
Halo is nowhere near as impressive graphically as DOA3, and does not come close to pushing the XBOX's capabilities. A PC can easily handle Halo, Microsoft is the only reason it hasn't come to PC (they bought Bungee to make it an XBOX esclusive).
Richleader:
The GPU in the XBOX is more powerful than a GF3 (slightly), but the bottle neck is between the video card and the rest of the system (CPU, memory, etc...). Data still travels over the AGP bus, which is an enhanced PCI bus, and is tied in with other antiquated hardware on the PC. A Macintosh system has less bottlenecks than a PC, but the best games are not made for Mac. I'm not a Mac fanboy, but the only way to see a GF3-class GPU at its best is in the XBOX.
Halo is nowhere near as impressive graphically as DOA3, and does not come close to pushing the XBOX's capabilities. A PC can easily handle Halo, Microsoft is the only reason it hasn't come to PC (they bought Bungee to make it an XBOX esclusive).
Richleader:
The GPU in the XBOX is more powerful than a GF3 (slightly), but the bottle neck is between the video card and the rest of the system (CPU, memory, etc...). Data still travels over the AGP bus, which is an enhanced PCI bus, and is tied in with other antiquated hardware on the PC. A Macintosh system has less bottlenecks than a PC, but the best games are not made for Mac. I'm not a Mac fanboy, but the only way to see a GF3-class GPU at its best is in the XBOX.
richleader
Golden Member
The architecture of the xbox doesn't eliminate any of those bottlenecks. It doesn't. The nforce boards didn't blow the kt266a away, either. It might downplay some of the bottlenecks, but the xbox really is that close to a pc.
<< Data still travels over the AGP bus, which is an enhanced PCI bus, >>
So friggin what? The speed boost from going from agp 2x to 4x is ~2%. Going to agp 16x or 32X would therefor NOT increase on a higher level because that bandwidth isn't being used.
<< A Macintosh system has less bottlenecks than a PC, but the best games are not made for Mac. >>
Well, ID and Blizzard have been stepping up to the plate... so, wait, who is making those good games, you mean, like microsoft then? But regardless of that, a brand new dual cpu G4 is scoring lower that a year old Pentium 3 when it comes to benchs--but hey, in Xbox fanboy land, that translates into less bottlenecks?
Look, consoles do have a lot of advantages, but looking at DOA3 and knowing how effects are done with shaders and are not CPU dependant, shaders that not only does the geforce 4 have (but has nearly a 50% clock speed advantage over!) I don't think it's that intimidating. PC games are still being made with the geforce 2 mx in mind as a target system. There might be slightly higher res textures availible for better cards, or higher resolutions, but that's the common denominator NOW.
But despite all of this, DOA3 isn't a good Vs. fighter. It just isn't. And the graphics alone aren't going to make people adopt the system when Marvel Superheroes Vs. Capcom II and Soul Caliber are availible for Dreamcast for penuts.
<< Data still travels over the AGP bus, which is an enhanced PCI bus, >>
So friggin what? The speed boost from going from agp 2x to 4x is ~2%. Going to agp 16x or 32X would therefor NOT increase on a higher level because that bandwidth isn't being used.
<< A Macintosh system has less bottlenecks than a PC, but the best games are not made for Mac. >>
Well, ID and Blizzard have been stepping up to the plate... so, wait, who is making those good games, you mean, like microsoft then? But regardless of that, a brand new dual cpu G4 is scoring lower that a year old Pentium 3 when it comes to benchs--but hey, in Xbox fanboy land, that translates into less bottlenecks?
Look, consoles do have a lot of advantages, but looking at DOA3 and knowing how effects are done with shaders and are not CPU dependant, shaders that not only does the geforce 4 have (but has nearly a 50% clock speed advantage over!) I don't think it's that intimidating. PC games are still being made with the geforce 2 mx in mind as a target system. There might be slightly higher res textures availible for better cards, or higher resolutions, but that's the common denominator NOW.
But despite all of this, DOA3 isn't a good Vs. fighter. It just isn't. And the graphics alone aren't going to make people adopt the system when Marvel Superheroes Vs. Capcom II and Soul Caliber are availible for Dreamcast for penuts.
CZroe
Lifer
From what I have heard, the nvidia chipset in the XBOX eliminates numerous PC flaws. I wouldn't compare it to an nforce. After all, this is a PIII chipset 🙂
BTW, I only refer to the graphics of DOA3, I have not played past a few stages of the demo, some of which were unimpressive, but a some of them blew me away. I rally don't care for the game at all. For me, PC gaming will always be a richer experience.
Quake 3 Arena blows any console game away, especially those pitiful console ports. Mouse+keyboard all the way baby!
[edit]
Oh yeah, as far as fighting games go: Marvel vs Capcom = kick ass
BTW, I only refer to the graphics of DOA3, I have not played past a few stages of the demo, some of which were unimpressive, but a some of them blew me away. I rally don't care for the game at all. For me, PC gaming will always be a richer experience.
Quake 3 Arena blows any console game away, especially those pitiful console ports. Mouse+keyboard all the way baby!
[edit]
Oh yeah, as far as fighting games go: Marvel vs Capcom = kick ass
richleader
Golden Member
I think I lost two rounds in DOA3, but managed to beat in on my first try. That said, it's superior to that Kabuki fighter game for the xbox that some reviewer managed to beat by banging the buttons on the control pad against his posterior; first line of the review "I beat this game with my @ss."
Why is the xbox so powerful compared to other consoles? It's because of a) the sheer amount of processing power thrown at it, and b) the hybrid GF3.
With a dedicated console CPU they wouldn't need that much speed. It might be around twice the speed of other console CPUs, but it IS x86-based and comes with the in-built problems OF that processor architecture (regardless of the extra bandwidth gained throughout the rest of the system).
The hybrid GeForce3 (NV2A) is only running in lo-res and gets AA for free (through a tv), so it's never fill-rate limited. The only difference and advantage it has over a normal GF3 are the extra shaders on-board, making complicated effects that much easier on xbox than a PC.
As for the results... Halo looks good for a console game, but looks naff compared to any recent FPS on PC. The scenery and texture detail are pathetic next to a decent PC. The effects are good (and should be, given the hardware!) and that's what makes a lot of punters go "ooooh, aaahh", but technically I wasn't impressed.
I was also one of those people dismayed at the news that Halo was to become X-box-only. It was originally being readied for a pc release when the boffins at MS obviously decided that would impact on x-box sales, so put pc development on the back burner.
I DO think it's a bit of a shame when PCs don't get the goods consoles do, but it works both ways... look how far behind PS2 owners have been with the release of Half-Life and DeusEx... and it's not just limited to consoleVsPC, as many games have sprouted sequels on their home format while the original is just getting released on another (eg. Crazy Taxi, Tony Hawks).
EA are only doing what is ultimately the more profitable, and in my mind, the most sense. Sports games DO tend to play better on consoles because of their control design and their ease of multiplayer shenanigans, whereas FPSs work much better on PCs.
With a dedicated console CPU they wouldn't need that much speed. It might be around twice the speed of other console CPUs, but it IS x86-based and comes with the in-built problems OF that processor architecture (regardless of the extra bandwidth gained throughout the rest of the system).
The hybrid GeForce3 (NV2A) is only running in lo-res and gets AA for free (through a tv), so it's never fill-rate limited. The only difference and advantage it has over a normal GF3 are the extra shaders on-board, making complicated effects that much easier on xbox than a PC.
As for the results... Halo looks good for a console game, but looks naff compared to any recent FPS on PC. The scenery and texture detail are pathetic next to a decent PC. The effects are good (and should be, given the hardware!) and that's what makes a lot of punters go "ooooh, aaahh", but technically I wasn't impressed.
I was also one of those people dismayed at the news that Halo was to become X-box-only. It was originally being readied for a pc release when the boffins at MS obviously decided that would impact on x-box sales, so put pc development on the back burner.
I DO think it's a bit of a shame when PCs don't get the goods consoles do, but it works both ways... look how far behind PS2 owners have been with the release of Half-Life and DeusEx... and it's not just limited to consoleVsPC, as many games have sprouted sequels on their home format while the original is just getting released on another (eg. Crazy Taxi, Tony Hawks).
EA are only doing what is ultimately the more profitable, and in my mind, the most sense. Sports games DO tend to play better on consoles because of their control design and their ease of multiplayer shenanigans, whereas FPSs work much better on PCs.
Well everyone, I gave in... I am now the owner of a used PS2. HAPPY NOW??? 🙂
I'm still not gonna give up my gripe about PC games. We have the best graphics, the best sound, and the best display(even on a tv). We have gamepads, joysticks, steering wheels, and of course the keyboard and mouse. FPSes make for fine gaming but I'm a little burnt out of them after playing max payne(which looks ps1-ish on the ps2 by the way). Someone made a comment about sports games being better on the consoles but the PC has had the best version of NBA Live each year since 96' and the soccer and hockey games are supposed to be great to on the PC too.
All I'm saying is that we can have good looking and great playing games of all types if we demand them AND graphic chip companies like Nvidia and ATI(Who else is there?) should be taking a hand in having games developed that show off the majesty of their wares.
When Spiderman The Movie gets released I will be getting it for the PC and not the PS2. 🙂
I'm still not gonna give up my gripe about PC games. We have the best graphics, the best sound, and the best display(even on a tv). We have gamepads, joysticks, steering wheels, and of course the keyboard and mouse. FPSes make for fine gaming but I'm a little burnt out of them after playing max payne(which looks ps1-ish on the ps2 by the way). Someone made a comment about sports games being better on the consoles but the PC has had the best version of NBA Live each year since 96' and the soccer and hockey games are supposed to be great to on the PC too.
All I'm saying is that we can have good looking and great playing games of all types if we demand them AND graphic chip companies like Nvidia and ATI(Who else is there?) should be taking a hand in having games developed that show off the majesty of their wares.
When Spiderman The Movie gets released I will be getting it for the PC and not the PS2. 🙂
SinnerWolf
Senior member
Console games and PC games are geared for 2 very different audiences. Consoles are for kids first and foremost, anime fans, sports fans, and the pseudo-rpg fan. Pc's are for strategy, action, rpg, and massive multiplayer games. Any game designed for one, and ported to the other has historically sucked (diablo, ut, final fantasy, etc..).
And then you get into the corporate niche and profability bs. Consoles are a hundred times more profitable then the pc market, and have been since before the ps came out. They design the systems so that you have to buy accessories in order to play the games properly (memory cards, extra controllers, steering wheels, fishing rods, guns, etc...). And then develop a game or character unique to their platform to hook you (pokemon, tomb raider, mario, crash, star wars). Which is why more companies feel comfortable walking blindly into sony's arms, or ms for that matter.
consoles will always be technologically behind pc's, simply because the investors/R&D's want tried and proven hardware which doesn't have to be updated until the next system release 3 to 5 years later. Programmers can maximize these systems because every single one is identical, with no variables other then how hard your two year old beats the crap out of the controller. They know exactly what they are capable of doing. Pc's are infinitely more diverse, and require a broader approach as they have to make a game work with a machine that's 5 years old, an integrated video card, and god knows how many OS/software variations.
And if all you want to play is fighting/racing/sports games.... then you're not a gamer anyway. Go buy a ps2/xbox and quit your bitchin.
And then you get into the corporate niche and profability bs. Consoles are a hundred times more profitable then the pc market, and have been since before the ps came out. They design the systems so that you have to buy accessories in order to play the games properly (memory cards, extra controllers, steering wheels, fishing rods, guns, etc...). And then develop a game or character unique to their platform to hook you (pokemon, tomb raider, mario, crash, star wars). Which is why more companies feel comfortable walking blindly into sony's arms, or ms for that matter.
consoles will always be technologically behind pc's, simply because the investors/R&D's want tried and proven hardware which doesn't have to be updated until the next system release 3 to 5 years later. Programmers can maximize these systems because every single one is identical, with no variables other then how hard your two year old beats the crap out of the controller. They know exactly what they are capable of doing. Pc's are infinitely more diverse, and require a broader approach as they have to make a game work with a machine that's 5 years old, an integrated video card, and god knows how many OS/software variations.
And if all you want to play is fighting/racing/sports games.... then you're not a gamer anyway. Go buy a ps2/xbox and quit your bitchin.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
