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

[Nebor]

COnsoles display 640x480, that's why they seem fast.

And you're just saying that Xbox 2 and PS3 MIGHT have those features such as full monitor support, mouse and keyboard, etc... Well hell, the next Pentium processor that comes out might be made of crackers, do 8ghz, and cost $4. It's all just a wild guess at what COULD happen to one up someone else.

As it stands PCs are superior in every way other than value.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Ok, whatever, you can throw technical details all day, but you still cannot say that a game like Ninja Gaiden is not smooth (unless you're some kind of robot or something that can actually percieve the most minute difference between things). If 30 fps isn't smooth then why does live tv look correct? I'm done arguing this, because you'll never concede that just because it can't put out in some insane resolution with a fps that is beyond perception that the Xbox isn't garbage. Project Gotham Racing ran at 60 fps and PGR 2 at 30, while both were at the same resolution, yet which one looks better? Hmm...its obvious that the first one would since its at twice the fps.

Ok, dude, don't take that seriously, I'm not trying to trash on you, I do realize that it would be incredibly awesome (my head would probably explode) if Ninja Gaiden was at that resolution with 150 fps. Lets hope the day when that is possible comes very soon.

 

[arod]

I like PC games more.... but I rarely play anything other than FPS which PC owns consoles at.

 

[Mik3y]

comps are made to do much more then gaming, such as video encoding, multimedia, music, and more. you cant compare a $2000 computer with an xbox if you dont list out the components. dont forget the lcd screen, keyboard, software, better harddrive, better ram, better video card, speakers, printer, and etc. computers are, by far, much more versatile then an xbox, and are superior then an xbox in everyway. an xbox is only about 733MHz and from wut i've heard, it uses a geforce mx vid card. because the resolution on tv's suck with an xbox, thats y even new, more xtreme games can be played smoothly on an xbox. i mean, i could just plug my old P3, my radeon 7500, and a controller into a TV, and TA-DA!, i have myself an xbox.

 

[Acanthus]

The Xbox uses a chip with geforce 3 Ti and Geforce 4 Ti technology in it.

Its nowhere near an MX

 

[Mik3y]

lol, close enuff.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Well my friend ForceCalibur, the reason that they don't do what you want to have done is because a video card that could run all games at amazing frame rates and resolutions for the next 5 years would be extremely stupid to manufacture and sell to customers. Why? Because it would first of all be very expensive, and second, graphics card companies don't want people to buy their stuff EVERY FIVE YEARS! The whole point with upgrading your computer hardware is for these companies to sell their goods. They frankly don't care about us. It's their pockets they care about!

 

[IntelUser2000]

Hmm, lets see why Xbox is so fast at rendering games and PC doesn't seem to be and also costing less. Because gaming consoles like Xbox and PS2 is specially made hardware designed to run games fast(like graphics cards are good for graphics but not zipping files or burning CDs). And if you see people playing consoles vs PCs, the mouse and keyboard combination is not only more flexible, but people in PCs play generally better(which could be fixed but you get my point). Also consoles have very low-resource-using OSes while PCs have bloated OSes like WinXP and all the OSes before it(even more with Longhorn which will eat graphics power).

It depends which you do most. If you play games only, go consoles. If you do download games, burn music, encode video/audio, play games or just surf internet, go PCs.

My point is that consoles are specialized machines just made to play games. I'll give you an example how specializing is better. Look at this review about hard drives: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=1799&p=10 if you look at the first couple of pages, you'll see that for PC applications made-for-PC drives are faster than workstation hard drives whether the workstation one has higher RPM or not. But if you look at workstation benchmarks, you'll see that SCSI based workstation drives are the fastest in workstation work than PC drives. Same with workstation graphics cards. They are faster in workstation apps. Consoles are faster in just games. Its a specialized machine.

 

[biostud]

I'm 100% PC gamer since I don't own a TV, and even though some console games looks nice at first apperance, then I always get annoyed at the low detail textures and the low resolution.

 

[wizdum]

I used to be a console gamer... used to.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Soooo many misinformed no0bs.

- M4H

 

[SneakyStuff]

You guys still don't get my post do you?A PC costs what, 2000 dollars for really nice/fast PC with a good graphics card, high processor etc.

LOL where do you buy your PC's at? Bestbuy.com? You can configure an Athlon 64 system, with a lot of high end options, in FULL, for under 1G, and it will destroy any console as far as functionality and futureproofness goes, remember, you cant upgrade an xbox, i dont care what number is after it

 

[darkswordsman17]

Hey, could you guys configure what you're calling high end computers. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, I'm just wondering what you had in mind (might be something I wanna buy).

 

[reever]

Computers are used for more than games, what a concept. And no it doesn't take 3000, 2000, or even 1000 bucks to do anything a console does and more

 

[myocardia]

Awesome system #1, less expensive, but still fast as hell. Processor: mobile Barton 2600 for $99, motherboard: DFI NFII Ultra Infinity for $99 or Abit NF7-S for $105, ram (man, has ram gone up lately!): Buffalo PC3200 with Winbond CH6 chips for $59 per 256MB stick, case: Antec SLK3700AMB for $59.99, power supply: Antec SL450 for $58, hard-drive: Hitachi 120GB IDE w/8MB cache and 3 year warranty for $92 or Hitachi 160GB SATA 8MB cache drive for $119.50, optical drives: LiteOn 16X DVD-rom for $31.50 + 8x Optorite DVD+/- RW for $94.99, cpu heatsink: Thermaltake Volcano 12 Extreme for $35, and you'll have to have an OS, so Full version of Windows XP w/SP1a for $89, and finally, a good, fast video card: Sapphire 9800 Pro for $210. Now, with the bigger of the 2 hard-drives, and with 512MB of ram, these components will give you an awesome system that will run rings around any gaming console for years to come, while running 24/7 at 2.5ghz, and enabling you to "backup" DVD's for a grand total of $1015.

 

[0roo0roo]

can't honestly argue a pc is great bang for buck with gaming. its quite impressive what the xbox can do, gotta love what the larger console software market can create for its systems...and what pc piracy does to its software pool course pc's will always been ahead, but the number of games that take full advantage are kinda small, and games like ninja gaiden just don't show up at all on pc's. and to really keep up and beat consoles, u gotta spend but really consoles so cheap just be happy with both.

 

[Gurck]

I don't like consoles, I have a system that does what they do and so much more. I'd have no problem with consoles existing, except that some games that I'd like to play aren't made for the pc. If you're going to talk about what the ps3 or some other console that isn't out yet can do, let's compare it not to current computer systems but future ones that aren't out yet My Athlon 256 @ 15 ghz will stomp your ps3~ hehehe... Anywho I really just see them as a waste of money, and knowing this, game companies retain interest by keeping many titles off of PCs.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: ForceCalibur
Does anyone else find it rather odd that an 3 year old ( i think) Xbox can run Halo, Ninja Gaiden, and many other graphically intensive games so smoothly and so beautifully. Oh, and get this, you would have to spend nearly 20 times the money to buy a computer that can even run a freaken 5 year old Halo without shooting itself in the head.

OK, try it. Take a PIII 700, 512MB RAM (win2k + games...need some headroom! ), and a GF3 Ti 200.
At 640x480, can that play it?

Nowadays, people are so consumed with the "power" of their hardware, that people forget that Hardware only exists to run software. All they care about are their 3Dmarks or PCmarks or whatever benchmarks... its like constantly buying new cars but only test driving them, but never actually using them.

If you want to do that, fine. I play.

I for one, am NOT impressed with how PC graphics have been evolving. If a Pentium 3, Geforce 3 based $150 dollar piece of hardware can still beat the *crack* out of the some of best PC graphics today still astounds me. Not to mention how the now ancient playstation 2 was cranking out graphical goodness like Final Fantasy X on a puny 4 megabyte GPU years ago.

$150? I doubt it. Beat the best? I'll take some of what you're smoking. Come back and talk when the XBox can do 1280x1024, 8x AA, 8x AF at even 30FPS (max it can use anyway).

The only saving grace for the PC is the keyboard/mouse design.

And sound cards, and AIM in the background, and chatting in games, and using current 'net connection instead of paying extra, and NO GOD DAMNED JAGGIES! XBox and PS2 have too many jaggies! Jaggies are EVIL!

Give me an Xbox2/PS3. Stick it onto a monitor, give it full keyboard/mouse support along with pads. Attach a stero system. And I will have a dedicated system for games with NO issues with bugs, full support of games, NO risk of being outdated every month.

Sure...

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.

Because those of us who spend this money on computers for games want games for computers.
Look at screenshots and benchmarks for Doom3. You think it's going to look that good on an Xbox? Fat chance.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: ForceCalibur
640 X480 is on a TV SCREEN. How hard is it for an Xbox2/PS3 to support 1280x1024?

Take a GF4MX and a 1GHz PC from a few years ago.
Run any game at 1280x1024.
Watch the slideshow.
It takes over 4 times the bandwidth to handle 1280x1024 than it does 640x480, now take that and remember you have slow shared RAM...ain't gonna happen. Too expensive, I'd bet. If they do, they'll be losing more money per unit than any other previous console ever made.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
First of all I'd like to thank you people for not thinking I was just trying to bash pc gaming. I'm kinda new to it myself.

Yeah, mouse is more accurate, I have no problem with the mouse, its the dam keyboard I hate. Oh well, I just need to get over it.

Thats the thing with pc games though, you'll be reading about them for a long time before they come out. They showed off Doom 3 what was it 2 years ago (they announced its development far before that too)? and its still not out (shut up about Fable). Yet in that time its graphics haven't improved much (admittedly, I don't know how they could really) and the consoles have all improved pretty considerably in their graphics.

How is this different from console games? How much have people read about whatever FF game is on the way? Halo? Doom 3 (hint hint hint)?

You all make valid points, you just have to choose which you prefer, there is no right or wrong answer. There is one thing I must disagree with though. PC games will not always outdo console graphics, because computing will reach a point where one day you can't really get any better.

No, it won't. Yes, we will get very close to photorealism, but it will keep advancing, because new applications pop up just as the power to use them is starting to get made.

In fact its almost already here.

NVidia and ATi demos don't match up with actual games, however much we could wish it.

Oh and about how the Xbox 2 will be putting Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 caliber graphics when they come out, not true. Have you heard about the Unreal 3.0 engine? They've said the Xbox can do that kind of stuff now. Also, Halo 2's graphics are a pretty good rival.[/q
Given how low PCs they've gotten HL2 to run on (IIRC, they got it going on a TNT2), and Doom 3 will be the same way, of course it can be done now, just not as well. Yet given the circumstances, they won't need to do as much work.

The last thing I'll gripe about pc's is the fact that you cannot play more than one player per pc. I know many of you will probably say this is a good thing, but it'd help offset the expense of the hardware if you could have multple people play on the same machine (dual monitor support anybody?).

Slowdowns, and split-screen is the worst evil ever created. The only game I deal with it for is MarioKart64. Multiple monitors, each attached to a controller? Nah.
I'm all for console LANs, though.

Once again, I stress, all gaming is good gaming, wether it be old school Nintnendo or a $2500 dollar juggernaut of a pc.

...or a $800 PC, playing NES, SNES, PSX, N64, and PC games .

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: ForceCalibur
You guys still don't get my post do you?

A PC costs what, 2000 dollars for really nice/fast PC with a good graphics card, high processor etc.

When Xbox TWO and PS THREE Come out, there should be:

Full Monitor Support and high resolution support
Full keyboard/Mouse support (Atleast as an option, very good for FPS)
Full Sound system support (like computer speakers or whatever, or home theature support)

And the current online option, with a Harddrive etc...

Why does this BEAT a COMPUTER as a gaming system?

1. No BUGS

I have used consoles...no. There are bugs. Just few fatal ones.

2. STREAMLINED Support/Optimization.

No. That's what PC games [should be] get[ting]. No need on a console.

3. More Games/ LESS development time

Nope. Good games take a long time. Period. *cough* Halo?

Since this ONLY designed to run games, (and I'm sure the Xbox has an OS on it), there could be ways to easily port or actually RUN PC games on this, as well as proprietary console games.

SS, SS2, Q3, MW4...yup. Gamepad just ruins those.

This would be a DREAM for average gamer/consumer. Why?

1. Cost is cut INSANELY. Instead of spending 1000 dollars on the hardware to RUN the games, get EVERY game that interests you. You don't play hardware, you play the SOFTWARE.

I do that now. I didn't get a $90 soundcard for games. I'm not getting a $93 hard drive for games. I didn't get a burner for games.
I've spent about $400 over the last year on gaming hardware, and that's only because my GF4 died. Otherwise that'd be $200, and even that could be a stretch, as I got more in general use from my non-video card upgrades than in gaming. Also, most people have FX 5200 or 9600se if they buy now. Hardly cutting edge.

2. Multifunctional Online/Party gameplay. Invite friends over for gamepad action, or play online with keyboard/mouse.

LAN party. Check.

3. No Spending more and more cash trying to keep up with technology trends, your thing getting outdated.

It gets outdated regardless. But why spend all that?
17" monitor, Dell, used.
1800+, cheap NF2 mobo
512MB PC3200
9600 XT
Aside from the video card, that isn't much. I don't try to keep up with technology trends, and neither do most gamers. They upgrade when what they have doesn't play the game that well, not simply when something performing 25% better comes out.

Lets face it, If Xbox can crank out things like Ninja Gaiden/Halo with a freaken 5 year old Hardware (and Halo was FIRST GENERATION), what do you think XBox2/PS3 can do? I am SUPREMELY confident if the resolution issue was resolved ANY FREAKEN game would beat the sh*t out of the new Unreal Engine. Because every game is designed to use ONE system, there is no compatibility, design, performance ANYTHING to be worked out. You get the best possible every time.

Really big If. And if they get this "resolution problem" solved, they do have to worry abour compatability, as you've just introduced new variables that consoles have never had before (just look at how HDTV has been handled...yecch).

I'm just saying Sony and Microsoft should atleast consider this. And if you really want upgradeability, make the freaken thing upgradeable. When new GPUs come out, you can stick it in there, firmware/driver updates. Its the internet. Whatever, it'll all work out.

No, that's what PCs are for. It would also add too much to the machine cost.
CPU socket.
RAM slots.
graphics slot/socket.
etc.
On a piece of hardware being sold for $300 or less, they can't afford that. Convergence is coming down from PCs, not up from consoles.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Ok, whatever, you can throw technical details all day, but you still cannot say that a game like Ninja Gaiden is not smooth (unless you're some kind of robot or something that can actually percieve the most minute difference between things). If 30 fps isn't smooth then why does live tv look correct?

interlacing helps, as does motion blur, and making things shinier makes it look more blurry. Most consoles games I've seen do not look smooth, though. I've had better than 30FPS since the Voodoo2 came out.

I'm done arguing this, because you'll never concede that just because it can't put out in some insane resolution with a fps that is beyond perception that the Xbox isn't garbage.

Right. Because it's true. Play at 1024x768...as soon as you can get 50+ FPS in everything at nice detail, you don't go back. Very important with certain games, as well (MW4, FI...800x600 vs. 1024x768...night and day when you're trying to make shots past about 400m) I'd probably use 1280x1024 if I weren't on a 17" monitor.

Project Gotham Racing ran at 60 fps and PGR 2 at 30, while both were at the same resolution, yet which one looks better? Hmm...its obvious that the first one would since its at twice the fps.

Dunno. I don't do racing games.

Ok, dude, don't take that seriously, I'm not trying to trash on you, I do realize that it would be incredibly awesome (my head would probably explode) if Ninja Gaiden was at that resolution with 150 fps. Lets hope the day when that is possible comes very soon.

Everyone does.

 

[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!

 

[Alkali]

I have a PS2 and a Gamecube


I havn't used them for more than about 6 hours in the past YEAR because I'm too busy enjoying superb graphics on my PC. I think I'm going to sell all of my console stuff; they are waste of time until PS3, then I'll probably grab that just for GT4 or whatever.

 

[txxxx]

Oh dear. The original poster is trying to say "you can have lots of fun gaming on a console if you drop your obsession on better graphics".

And lets face it, most people around here have forgotten that clear 1024x768 graphics doesnt make a game. Then again, most people are too busy being obsessed with the next generation and argueing over stupid theory...this forum's going downhill lately.