Still holding up? :disgust: It looked like crap then and looks like crap now. Sorry, but the only game I'm willing to play in 640x480 is Starcraft. And last I checked that's a pc game. Of course no Ur pc would touch it; Ur is a city that's been dead for millenia. They didn't even have electricity back then, much less computers. However a $500 pc three years ago could easily cream the xbox in that same reso. Keep in mind that price doesn't include a monitor, as console prices don't include TVs.
Still holding up? :disgust: It looked like crap then and looks like crap now. Sorry, but the only game I'm willing to play in 640x480 is Starcraft. And last I checked that's a pc game. Of course no Ur pc would touch it; Ur is a city that's been dead for millenia. They didn't even have electricity back then, much less computers. However a $500 pc three years ago could easily cream the xbox in that same reso. Keep in mind that price doesn't include a monitor, as console prices don't include TVs.
Applications taking advantage of dual CPUs is a good thing. It isn't going to hurt performance on single CPU systems, only improve performance on dual CPU systems. Dual CPUs will never be required.
I'm glad they are taking advantage of new cards. Again, just because the engines are taking advantage of new technology doesn't mean the applications won't run fine on old technology. I still have a Radeon 8500, and I can play most modern games at playable framerates. You don't have to buy those $450 video cards...
Of course more memory is needed. However, memory is also cheaper than it has ever been. 1GB in a mid-range system is not out of the question in terms of cost. Also, you seem to be confused as to what dual channel memory is. If nothing else you phrased that statement very poorly.
It doesn't matter how advanced consoles get. People are still going to take advantage of the fact that there is an astonishing list of games available for the PC in comparison the consoles. Not only that, but many people just prefer a mouse and keyboard for certain types of games. I know I do for RTS and FPS games in particular.
I built my friend a practically top of the line system for $1000. $3000 systems are for those who have money to burn and don't mind paying multiple hundred dollar premiums for hardware that only performs 10% better.
And in one day you have proven to have failed English class. I never said it provides superior quality, where did you get that? I said it still looks GREAT. No matter how technical you want to get, Halo 2 still looks absolutely phenomonal. This matter is entirely subjective anyway, so arguing the point is moot. If you think fish tastes bad, I cannot convince you otherwise.
Opinion only goes so far. You could say vinyl records sound great or VHS tapes look great, you'd be wearing the same heavily rose-tinted glasses...
And for people who simply must have a case with alien eyes on it
Originally posted by: Gurck
Opinion only goes so far. You could say vinyl records sound great or VHS tapes look great, you'd be wearing the same heavily rose-tinted glasses...
And for people who simply must have a case with alien eyes on it
OFcourse, but not in this case. If your not blind, you cannot say these are bad graphics unless your standard is like.. Doom3, in which case anything less would cause blindness
.Examples: http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/screenindex.html
They look fine - in 640x480. My desktop reso is 12x9; those screenshots occupy 1/4 of my screen. You do understand that as images expand from their base resolution, their quality & definition go down, right?
Edit: and my standard isn't Doom3, it's Far Cry
Edit: and my standard isn't Doom3, it's Far Cry
You have to remember the native resolution for a TV is 640x480, While a computer can run 1600x1200 easy. That dosnt mean that the Xbox is a crappy system it just cant run a higher resolution, because of limitations to the TV.
Regs
Lifer
- Aug 9, 2002
- 16,666
- 21
- 81
Not exactly. Not only do you have raw clock speed, but latency. Latency in my opinion, is only starting to be addressed now by Intel and AMD. On board memory controllers, better branch predictors, more internal registers. Hence, more bang for your buck clock cycle.
What we need to get rid of is x86. Now that cpu's in the future will be cross programmable, sky is the limit.
If you want to play on a low resolution TV screen compared to a computer monitor, then be my guest. Newer and faster technology has been rapidly growing in the PC industry for the past couple of years. The consoles cannot keep up with such technology because their market will simply not allow it. Their market does not allow to build a new system with a new cpu and video card every 6 months. There is no interchangeable parts.
If you really want to see the differences however, I recommend you playing Max Payne 2 on the PS2 first, then play Max Payne 2 @ 1280x1024 with full detail on the PC.
Screenshot quality depends on the hardware, not the display - ie. the screenshots look better on computer than the game would look on TV. On second glance, those screens look to be in 800x600, which is more than a tv can even do. Computers can do more than twice that. I play Far Cry in 10x7 and it looks jaggy; I'm due for a video card upgrade. 8x6 would look terrible. It's still far more than a conventional TV can do, of course, but looks bad all the same.
The PC platform has a lot of fantastic games... So does the Xbox. (And the PS2 and Gamecube, for that matter.) It's a shame that many people here choose limit their options. Based on what rationale, I'll never understand.
I own both a high end PC and an Xbox (and a PS2). On any given night I can choose to play UT2004, or I can decide to play Project Gotham Racing 2.
Yes, the graphics are better on the PC. But there just isn't any PC game that compares to PGR2. Not to mention that I can play it from the comfort of my couch, in front of my HDTV (surrounded by 5.1 DD audio), using voice chat to talk to fellow racers. Or I can choose to invite a few friends over, and we can play in the same room via split screen.
My point is that each platform offers its pros and cons. And I just don't see the point of limiting your choices.
I own both a high end PC and an Xbox (and a PS2). On any given night I can choose to play UT2004, or I can decide to play Project Gotham Racing 2.
Yes, the graphics are better on the PC. But there just isn't any PC game that compares to PGR2. Not to mention that I can play it from the comfort of my couch, in front of my HDTV (surrounded by 5.1 DD audio), using voice chat to talk to fellow racers. Or I can choose to invite a few friends over, and we can play in the same room via split screen.
My point is that each platform offers its pros and cons. And I just don't see the point of limiting your choices.
apoppin
Lifer
Well letsee, the next gen of consoles is due very late '05. Possibly '06.
A LOT can happen in PC gaming in 18 months to 2+ years.
The 6800U and x800Pro will be sub $200 then.
In the MEANtime PC gaming RULES and consoles - for the next 2 years - will continue to be INferior (in EVERY way).
:roll:
A LOT can happen in PC gaming in 18 months to 2+ years.
The 6800U and x800Pro will be sub $200 then.
In the MEANtime PC gaming RULES and consoles - for the next 2 years - will continue to be INferior (in EVERY way).
:roll:
The XBox has quite a library of 720P (1,280x720) and 1080i (1,920x1,080) games which are higher equivalent resolutions than most people use on their PC. GC is also capable of HiDef resolutions, but doesn't have much of a library, and even the PS2 is capable of producing a progressive 480 picture. Of course you need a capable TV, but consoles ARE capable of much higher resolutions than 640x480.
EVERY way? Is there a better racer on the PC than PGR2 or Rallisport Challenge 2? How about a better NHL game than ESPN?Originally posted by: apoppin
Well letsee, the next gen of consoles is due very late '05. Possibly '06.
A LOT can happen in PC gaming in 18 months to 2+ years.
The 6800U and x800Pro will be sub $200 then.
In the MEANtime PC gaming RULES and consoles - for the next 2 years - will continue to be INferior (in EVERY way).
:roll:
That's not even taking into account the Xbox's much superior audio.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
No...dual-core and better HT. Cost and everything else increases as normal, just that it's getting to a point where using multiple slower cores is easier than making a single one really fast.
It's dual.
Anyway, that's BS. If you paid $300 for a Ti 4600, you're still fine. It's no worse than when you got a Voodoo2 and needed a new card about when the GF DDR was hitting the streets, and could hold out a bit even then.
That's capacity, not speed. Give XP 256MB RAM and a PII 266 will run OK. speed and bandwidth is for the applications that are getting hungry. And check overclocking benches...overclocking the RAM makes very little difference outside of content creation. DDR is getting faster and around when we get to needing more than 6.4GB/s, DDR-II should be there. Note that Samsung has already gotten 800MHz modules. Them and Micron are basically waiting for the market to want the technology. Around 800MHz, DDR-II becomes clearly superior to current DDR (not touching XDR with a 10' pole).
And how will PCs be by then? For one thing, speed isn't everything--just take a look at multitasking and gaming benches for the A64 2800...a 1.8GHz CPU, with about the same calculation ability as the TBreds that got that high is at worse even with the 2.2Ghz XP. We might not be but into 4GHz Intel and 3GHz AMD next year, but they will haul some serious ass.
...or at most $1000, but me using 2nd-hand monitors, more like $700, and getting cheaper. True high-end is always wasted money (except on monitors). $3000 would make a nice dually, but no way a single-CPU desktop.
Consoles have one thing going for them:
Fighting games.
PCs can do any kind of sim, FPS and strategy game like no console will be able to until they output similar res ($100 monitor, or $2000 TV?), have a mouse and keyboard, and do real 60+ FPS.
PC gaming has dropped off a bit recently, but you know why? Piss poor games. The last really good games were Mafia and MW4. Nothing since has been that great. Sure there's been eye candy, but that's really all. Hopefully in a year or so some good ones will pop out (Doom 3, HL2, maybe a few good RTSs).
Just a general comment on everything everyone has said here,
the majoy concensus being that the major drawbacks of consoles being the limited resolution, lack of up to date hardware as they age, and generally not as fun for RTS/FPS due to lack of keyboard/mouse?
having played games on both for years, i must say that i cannot dispute any of the weaknesses of the consoles, but i've also had tons of fun playing games on them. likewise, i couldn't imagine trying to play, oh, devil may cry, on my PC. i also would never imagine playing far cry on my PS2 (even if it were capable of actually running the game) that aside, i'm sure the console makers have realized their lack of certain things for years, and personally i would not be surprised to find a keyboard, or keyboard-like device on next gen consoles. the X-Box controllers being, esentially USB controllers, what's going to stop them from slapping a keyboard/mouse combo into the x-box2 for FPS/RTS? or perhaps something like the belkin N52 speedpad and say, a logitech MX500? expensive i suppose, but perhaps get a specially made one for a bit cheaper? personally, i would like to see this happen as it would open up whole new areas for consoles. of course, i would also like to see many other things happen that probably wouldn't, how about concurrent online play cross-platform on the consoles and PC's? that would be interesting.
anyway,sorry for the lengthy post, just my 2 cents on the whole subject.
Cheers all.
the majoy concensus being that the major drawbacks of consoles being the limited resolution, lack of up to date hardware as they age, and generally not as fun for RTS/FPS due to lack of keyboard/mouse?
having played games on both for years, i must say that i cannot dispute any of the weaknesses of the consoles, but i've also had tons of fun playing games on them. likewise, i couldn't imagine trying to play, oh, devil may cry, on my PC. i also would never imagine playing far cry on my PS2 (even if it were capable of actually running the game) that aside, i'm sure the console makers have realized their lack of certain things for years, and personally i would not be surprised to find a keyboard, or keyboard-like device on next gen consoles. the X-Box controllers being, esentially USB controllers, what's going to stop them from slapping a keyboard/mouse combo into the x-box2 for FPS/RTS? or perhaps something like the belkin N52 speedpad and say, a logitech MX500? expensive i suppose, but perhaps get a specially made one for a bit cheaper? personally, i would like to see this happen as it would open up whole new areas for consoles. of course, i would also like to see many other things happen that probably wouldn't, how about concurrent online play cross-platform on the consoles and PC's? that would be interesting.
anyway,sorry for the lengthy post, just my 2 cents on the whole subject.
Cheers all.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
While that is true, the xbox lacks the ability to push those high resolutions well. It chokes pretty bad in a lot of scenes.
My PC can push ~720p to a DLP via DVI and still remain just as playable as playing it on my LCD monitor, at about the same resolution. Plus I can throw in AA and AF. Call of Duty @ 46" widescreen is a thing to behold.
The point is, a PC can do anything a console can and more. And do it better.
Correct, the only benefit to consoles are game availability. For some strange reason, game designers choose to limit their income by not releasing many titles for pc's - perhaps due to the xbox, Micro$oft per$uades them not to $ome how...? It's really too bad; I would have loved to play Starcraft: Ghost in particular. Oh well. Btw you can output computer to an hdtv, surrounded by 5.1 dd audio & use voip services to chat with fellow gamers. While you have a minor point on splitscreen, it comes with a big compromise to gaming enjoyment; you get only 320 vertical lines... at least it makes it seem better when your friends leave and you have all 640 to yourself though
Not sure why others "limit their options", but the way I see it, I already have a platform upon which to play games. Why buy another? Especially when the leading two are made by two of the most ruthless and greedy corporations on the planet.Game designers choose to release some of their products on the consoles only because they make A LOT more money that way, not due to some conspiracy theory. Console games outsell PC games by leaps and bounds.Originally posted by: Gurck
Correct, the only benefit to consoles are game availability. For some strange reason, game designers choose to limit their income by not releasing many titles for pc's - perhaps due to the xbox, Micro$oft per$uades them not to $ome how...? It's really too bad; I would have loved to play Starcraft: Ghost in particular. Oh well. Btw you can output computer to an hdtv, surrounded by 5.1 dd audio & use voip services to chat with fellow gamers. While you have a minor point on splitscreen, it comes with a big compromise to gaming enjoyment; you get only 320 vertical lines... at least it makes it seem better when your friends leave and you have all 640 to yourself though
Outputting a PC to HDTV and TRUE 5.1 DD is a major pain in the @ss... So much so, that it's not even worth the trouble.
VOIP is pretty much useless. It's not like the Xbox where everyone in the game is automatically connected. Nothing more to say here.
Yes, I see your point about resolution being lower on consoles. But there's so much more to a fun game than graphics... Many of the best games ever created didn't have the best graphics.
And although there are many more benefits to consoles (over PC's) than "game availability", is there a more valid argument than the games themselves? I'd rather play a great game at a lower resolution than not have it available to me it at all.
Agreed. I definitely prefer sports games, action games, and fighting games (Mortal Kombat) on console systems. However, there are several other genre's I prefer on a PC.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter