Computers and Gaming, why have the companies NOT done this?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

txxxx

Golden Member
Feb 13, 2003
1,700
0
0
Originally posted by: ZetaGouki
OK... first off standard TV's do NOT run 640x480, they run 320x240 INTERLACED.

Every other line is a pure black one. So at best, it's a pseudo 640x480.

Secondly, PCs are used for much more than GAMING... I'd love to see you encode a 2 hour DivX file on your X-Box or PS2... if you even managed to get that running you'd be waiting around for a week or so.

I nominate the person who started this thread for the "Ignorant Noob Of The Week" award.

Stand up and take a bow!

What about a desktop PC thats capable of everything but heavy gaming + a console?

That would easily satisfy many if they werent so overly obsessed about beating their mates in 3D mark.

I believe your the one who's in need of taking a bow.
 

Peter D

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2002
3,603
0
0
Pff, whatever. I prefer PC for many reasons such as: More purposes than just playing games, upgradable, overclockable, better games.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Originally posted by: txxxx
Originally posted by: ZetaGouki
OK... first off standard TV's do NOT run 640x480, they run 320x240 INTERLACED.

Every other line is a pure black one. So at best, it's a pseudo 640x480.

Secondly, PCs are used for much more than GAMING... I'd love to see you encode a 2 hour DivX file on your X-Box or PS2... if you even managed to get that running you'd be waiting around for a week or so.

I nominate the person who started this thread for the "Ignorant Noob Of The Week" award.

Stand up and take a bow!

What about a desktop PC thats capable of everything but heavy gaming + a console?

That would easily satisfy many if they werent so overly obsessed about beating their mates in 3D mark.

I believe your the one who's in need of taking a bow.

But you might as well spend the $200 for the console + games + memory cards + controllers on a new 9800Pro for your computer that can't do heavy gaming, then download some games, and use the computer for heavy gaming.
 

Davegod

Platinum Member
Nov 26, 2001
2,874
0
76
cant compare a PC and console.

for starters, the technical limitations of each is one factor on why console and pc games are just different low ram on consoles tends to lead towards fewer different player models and smaller areas between LOADING screens.

what you get onscreen is hardly comparable, since while they have largely do the same effects, console games are usually on 320x240 interlaced tv that is very different to a computer monitor. dont underestimate the tv vs monitor performance (and detail image quality) difference, it can often be noticed simply between NTSC and PAL conversions of the same game on the same console.

console platform is constant, and has far less overhead. per unit of "gaming power" consoles are more efficient. OTOH consoles dont tend to be much good for anything other than gaming. Console games have a habit of being less buggy and more reliably being a smooth game because all the hardware is the same, less scope for bugs. Oh, and of course theyre stuck with them forever because they cant patch like PC (which is both a plus and a minus).

console and PC gamers tend to be a different breed - or to put it another way, you get different types of games on each, and often even similar games are played the same way. This isnt just down to hardware limitations, but also the different markets. Strategy and FPS games for example are huge strenghs of the PC, arcade games huge strenghs of the console. Keyboard+mouse vs. gamepad...


cant compare PC and console.
 

Alkali

Senior member
Aug 14, 2002
483
0
0
Originally posted by: fireontheway
imho pc won a long time ago.. :D

Agreed. When PC's stopped being toys (around 486 time) and started to move properly into multi-function, by P233 time they were already ahead (remember to compare we had the SNES back then :D)
 

txxxx

Golden Member
Feb 13, 2003
1,700
0
0
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: txxxx
Originally posted by: ZetaGouki
OK... first off standard TV's do NOT run 640x480, they run 320x240 INTERLACED.

Every other line is a pure black one. So at best, it's a pseudo 640x480.

Secondly, PCs are used for much more than GAMING... I'd love to see you encode a 2 hour DivX file on your X-Box or PS2... if you even managed to get that running you'd be waiting around for a week or so.

I nominate the person who started this thread for the "Ignorant Noob Of The Week" award.

Stand up and take a bow!

What about a desktop PC thats capable of everything but heavy gaming + a console?

That would easily satisfy many if they werent so overly obsessed about beating their mates in 3D mark.

I believe your the one who's in need of taking a bow.

But you might as well spend the $200 for the console + games + memory cards + controllers on a new 9800Pro for your computer that can't do heavy gaming, then download some games, and use the computer for heavy gaming.

Could do, but the 9800 Pro comes with hassle - drivers that may need updating regularly, games that need patching, some games that just arent available on the PC's (such as Soul Calibur 2 ..... mmmmmmm).

Once a person starts adding a 9800 Pro to the equation, then they start wasting money on other components like super low latency memory which doesnt effect performance a whole lot.

As for for downloading games....well , it can be done for consoles too ;)

My point is, for some the console + PC route will prove better.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
Originally posted by: ForceCalibur

Why have they NOT done this? Why have they not realized such a ridiculous number of people buy computers MAINLY for games? When could spend 1/4 as much with a dedicated gaming system, and a much less expensive computer system.

um they have... it's called a CONSOLE. /boggle
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Whoa! Wait a second. Ninja Gaiden not smooth or beautiful? Have you seen or played this game? You can't say that just because it doesn't put out in 2048X1530 or whatever at 150 fps that its not smooth and good looking.

The reason why MS nor Sony will likely add monitor support is because you can get a better looking picture on a nice big HDTV.
Now you're talking about playing a console game on an HDTV. Last I checked even cheap HTDV sets cost much more than a high end computer. I have several computers and one of them is pretty much top of the line but no HDTV to speak of.

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
I doubt that every game could outdo the new Unreal engine if the resolution was upped, because the Xbox is programmed on pcs and runs pretty much the same code (albeit stripped down). In fact look at Unreal 2. That game uses the new Unreal engine and yet, it looks pretty crappy.
Hold on a second... You've said Halo looks better on the XBox than the PC. I own both as well and unless something is wrong with your PC or monitor I can't imagine where you got that idea. I loved Halo when I played it on the XBox but the truth is the crappy resolution on the XBox produces horrible jaggies.

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
IThe Xbox can put out some really nice graphics. I dare anybody to say that it doesn't after seeing Ninja Gaiden on a 50" HDTV. Its guaranteed that the Xbox 2 will have better graphics yet. Yes it is a better value for gaming, but doesn't mean that pc gaming should be done away with. An F1 car costs millions upon millions but its still awesome despite the fact that a street legal motorcylce can do 70% of its performance.
In some cases and only if you have an HDTV setup.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
Ok, the point I've been trying to make this whole time isn't that pc or console is better. Regardless of all the technical jumbo, a good game is a good game. Therefore, to me you can't say either one is better. I can't play an incredible game like Metroid Prime on the pc (at least not yet, but it'll be a little while before emulators get there). Doesn't mean there isn't some very great games on the pc.

It is all based on preference. I'm all for both console and pc gaming, because each one has its own awesome qualities. Consoles nor pc gaming should be done away with, and in my opinion to get the total gaming experience it'd have to be consoles and pc.

I beg to differ that consoles have more jaggies than pc.
Playing Halo on my computer it has a LOT more jaggies than the xbox version. (Do not take this statement seriously)

Ok, I want to experience what pc games really have to offer, so tell me what I should upgrade on my rig to do so:

P4 2.4B
MSI PT880
512 MB Geil Golden Dragon PC 3200
80 GB 7200 SATA
Pixelview GeForce FX 5200 128 bit 128MB (overclocked some)
Audigy 2ZS (but only on 2.1 speakers)
17" old Dell monitor that amazingly can display 1600X1200 but not at a good refresh rate

 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
Yes I did say the Xbox version of Halo looked better (didn't I?). I was trying to show I'm not just saying pc sucks or anything and that the pc can do things the xbox can't.
 

RaNDoMMAI

Senior member
Dec 30, 2003
771
0
0
Man.....

how can so many of u say u hate console gaming, i bet some of u still load up a rom every now and then and play.

console and PC games RULE!!! GAMES JUST RULE!!!!

END OF STORY!!!

i personally cant wait till shining force comes out for GBA, the remake looks so nice. not sure if i like MAX talking tho.

~RaNDoM