this thread is so amusing.
"Show up to an F1 or Lemans race with a 1 - 2 year old car and watch your ass get SMOKED. You've gotta pay to play! "
just don't rush out to buy the latest and greatest as a general rule, and even if you do, just be grateful you didn't have to spend an arm and a leg for what you got. the hardware world for pc moves much faster than the software world does. one of the reasons consoles have so much more hardware support in the games that are released is because consoles would die if they didn't have games with this type of support on release or near after the release of the console. nvidia, on the other hand, can release a graphics card with feature x and know it will still sell because of the gpu/memory speed bumps that it has in it providing some real world performance increase to endusers. if you were a game developer and just got the sdk for a new feature that can be implemented in a game because of newer hardware, you go and code it, and 6 months later a "new" hardware feature comes out. are you going to recode a lot of your game engine code just to support that new feature and possibly suffer heavy delays and setbacks? hell no. as a general rule, you should already know that features that become available on pc hardware aren't available for months and sometimes years in software like T&L. how long did it take intel to even make SSE become an accepted standard? and even when developers started recompiling their source code with compilers from intel and optimizing their code for these extended instructions, intel started releasing and trying to garner support for SSE2. do you see a pattern going on here? how many games out there right now have SSE2 support? hardly any. to whine about games not having the latest hardware support is stupid, as the entire pc industry has followed this pattern in general for a long time.
"sorry, but the characters in DOA3 look more like "real life" than ANY pc game. as well as the cars in GT3 or the environments in Final Fantasy X."
"Look at the character models of ANY X-Box or PS2 fighting game, and then look at the pitiful character models for PC games. "
ok, first, the ratio of character polygons to total polygons being rendered on the screen for a game like DOA are far higher than say quake 3 or unreal tournament. with this in mind, developers for these type of games can throw much more detail at the character than with your typical pc game. second, the environments in ffX are SO small compared to what is being rendered on a pc in arena type games that they can throw more polygons at them. and the texures in ffX blow chunks. hardware limitation on sony's part, as this issue has already been brought up by some people. when have you seen a game like DOA released exclusively for the pc, and then come out on console? i'll agree with you that characters for games as old as soul calibur blow characters on the pc away, but the same point i made above holds.
"Why the heck can't we run an emulator for X-Box or Playstation 2 on a PC? What about the X-box is so spectacular that with more than twice the clock cycles available, a emulator can't be made? Think of the realm of games that would be open then. "Who says it has to run under Window?""
hmmm, lets see here. for something like a ps2, i don't think you realize the amount of CPU power it takes just to emulate a completely different platform. we're talking about an entirely different instruction set and operating software on top of that. instruction set decoding and remapping to another one takes TONS of overhead when done at such a high level an emulator would be running at hardware-wise. and it's not likely that sony will make that available any time soon to the people that mostly code emulators, mainly people with spare time. there's also licensing issues, and sony would just shoot themselves in the foot if they did this. same thing goes for xbox, although i see it as more possible to have one because they share the same instruction set, although system calls to the OS the xbox runs might be different than system calls on say win2k.
"First off, I don't own ANY console and HAVEN'T since my Atari 7200. I have played the PS2 about a total of 2 hours in my life (all GT3). I've played Playstation about a total of 3 hours. I've never played a N64, I've played a Dreamcast for about 30 mins total and I played with the XBOX for about 20 mins TOTAL."
and with all this experience you have with consoles, you claim they have much better graphics than pc's do. right.
"Lock out "lower spec" machines from the GOODY GOODY HIGH TECH stuff that their machine can't use. Let the people with the goods have their eye candy."
this is retarded. any well written game with a respectable game engine has goober 3d features that can be enabled through a console or advanced settings. and 'locking out' 3d features a person might want is retarded as this cuts choice from the consumer. if a developer did this, it'd be no different then what ati did with their optimized quake drivers, taking choice out of the hands of the enduser.
"2) Extreme version for "high-end machine." The "extreme" version would have all of the standard features, plus support for the hardware/API features of the top of the line graphics cards. Have a lock-out feature that won't let you access this version without the proper hardware."
i guess you don't realize how hard it is to hand code for a particular brand of graphics chipsets, let alone 2, or 3. again, the same point i made for the first statement holds.
"How long have developers had to develop games for the XBOX? Not very long. We didn't even hear about XBOX until about a year and half ago (maybe even a shorter time than that). But all of the games have much more detailed levels, character models, visuals, and special effects than ANY PC game. Halo is just awesome."
ahahahahaha. halo is nothing ground breaking except gameplay wise. the character models don't look lightyears better than anything that has been available for the pc. and halo strains the xbox dropping to around 15 fps in some cases because the limits of hardware are already being reached. and you've played xbox for how long? 20 min about?
"<<
RTCW looks OK, but it's still the same old STRAIGHT LINES EVERYWHERE and drab visuals. I'd give anything to see some actual ROUND wheels in a game. >>
don't why i found this line funny, but i do! "
same here.
"Show up to an F1 or Lemans race with a 1 - 2 year old car and watch your ass get SMOKED. You've gotta pay to play! "
just don't rush out to buy the latest and greatest as a general rule, and even if you do, just be grateful you didn't have to spend an arm and a leg for what you got. the hardware world for pc moves much faster than the software world does. one of the reasons consoles have so much more hardware support in the games that are released is because consoles would die if they didn't have games with this type of support on release or near after the release of the console. nvidia, on the other hand, can release a graphics card with feature x and know it will still sell because of the gpu/memory speed bumps that it has in it providing some real world performance increase to endusers. if you were a game developer and just got the sdk for a new feature that can be implemented in a game because of newer hardware, you go and code it, and 6 months later a "new" hardware feature comes out. are you going to recode a lot of your game engine code just to support that new feature and possibly suffer heavy delays and setbacks? hell no. as a general rule, you should already know that features that become available on pc hardware aren't available for months and sometimes years in software like T&L. how long did it take intel to even make SSE become an accepted standard? and even when developers started recompiling their source code with compilers from intel and optimizing their code for these extended instructions, intel started releasing and trying to garner support for SSE2. do you see a pattern going on here? how many games out there right now have SSE2 support? hardly any. to whine about games not having the latest hardware support is stupid, as the entire pc industry has followed this pattern in general for a long time.
"sorry, but the characters in DOA3 look more like "real life" than ANY pc game. as well as the cars in GT3 or the environments in Final Fantasy X."
"Look at the character models of ANY X-Box or PS2 fighting game, and then look at the pitiful character models for PC games. "
ok, first, the ratio of character polygons to total polygons being rendered on the screen for a game like DOA are far higher than say quake 3 or unreal tournament. with this in mind, developers for these type of games can throw much more detail at the character than with your typical pc game. second, the environments in ffX are SO small compared to what is being rendered on a pc in arena type games that they can throw more polygons at them. and the texures in ffX blow chunks. hardware limitation on sony's part, as this issue has already been brought up by some people. when have you seen a game like DOA released exclusively for the pc, and then come out on console? i'll agree with you that characters for games as old as soul calibur blow characters on the pc away, but the same point i made above holds.
"Why the heck can't we run an emulator for X-Box or Playstation 2 on a PC? What about the X-box is so spectacular that with more than twice the clock cycles available, a emulator can't be made? Think of the realm of games that would be open then. "Who says it has to run under Window?""
hmmm, lets see here. for something like a ps2, i don't think you realize the amount of CPU power it takes just to emulate a completely different platform. we're talking about an entirely different instruction set and operating software on top of that. instruction set decoding and remapping to another one takes TONS of overhead when done at such a high level an emulator would be running at hardware-wise. and it's not likely that sony will make that available any time soon to the people that mostly code emulators, mainly people with spare time. there's also licensing issues, and sony would just shoot themselves in the foot if they did this. same thing goes for xbox, although i see it as more possible to have one because they share the same instruction set, although system calls to the OS the xbox runs might be different than system calls on say win2k.
"First off, I don't own ANY console and HAVEN'T since my Atari 7200. I have played the PS2 about a total of 2 hours in my life (all GT3). I've played Playstation about a total of 3 hours. I've never played a N64, I've played a Dreamcast for about 30 mins total and I played with the XBOX for about 20 mins TOTAL."
and with all this experience you have with consoles, you claim they have much better graphics than pc's do. right.
"Lock out "lower spec" machines from the GOODY GOODY HIGH TECH stuff that their machine can't use. Let the people with the goods have their eye candy."
this is retarded. any well written game with a respectable game engine has goober 3d features that can be enabled through a console or advanced settings. and 'locking out' 3d features a person might want is retarded as this cuts choice from the consumer. if a developer did this, it'd be no different then what ati did with their optimized quake drivers, taking choice out of the hands of the enduser.
"2) Extreme version for "high-end machine." The "extreme" version would have all of the standard features, plus support for the hardware/API features of the top of the line graphics cards. Have a lock-out feature that won't let you access this version without the proper hardware."
i guess you don't realize how hard it is to hand code for a particular brand of graphics chipsets, let alone 2, or 3. again, the same point i made for the first statement holds.
"How long have developers had to develop games for the XBOX? Not very long. We didn't even hear about XBOX until about a year and half ago (maybe even a shorter time than that). But all of the games have much more detailed levels, character models, visuals, and special effects than ANY PC game. Halo is just awesome."
ahahahahaha. halo is nothing ground breaking except gameplay wise. the character models don't look lightyears better than anything that has been available for the pc. and halo strains the xbox dropping to around 15 fps in some cases because the limits of hardware are already being reached. and you've played xbox for how long? 20 min about?
"<<
RTCW looks OK, but it's still the same old STRAIGHT LINES EVERYWHERE and drab visuals. I'd give anything to see some actual ROUND wheels in a game. >>
don't why i found this line funny, but i do! "
same here.
Facebook
Twitter