'Test Drive Unlimited' XBox 360 screens!

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: isekii
why do all the cars have the same engine noise ?

Because you have bad ears? The GT40 sounded nice, and the Lamboroghini engine was quite distinct, as was the Viper's. Only cars that sounded same to me were the Merc and the Aston maybe.

Did you guys even read the first 5 posts in the thread? The game was running on development hardware, not final spec hardware. I'm sure there is still a lot of polish going on before its done. And remember that the level is one large island, free and open to explore Grand Theft Auto-style, so I'm sure graphics won't be the same compared to racers on a small 2 mile track.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
How many current XBox games run *slow* on the console? How many for the PS2?? Do you even know what you're talking about? IF a console game EVAR ran slow, it would get slammed in reviews, it wouldn't sell a single copy and the developer would lose credibility and MS/Sony would bitch them out two and think twice about renewing their license. Even Gran Turismo 4 on an "old" PS2 runs at 60fps. I WISH we had that level of reliability on the PC, but I know its next to impossbile--too many variations across systems.

Slow meaning outdated. Low poly count, low resolution capabilities, low details, etc.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga

Originally posted by: isekii
why do all the cars have the same engine noise ?

Because you have bad ears? The GT40 sounded nice, and the Lamboroghini engine was quite distinct, as was the Viper's. Only cars that sounded same to me were the Merc and the Aston maybe.

Did you guys even read the first 5 posts in the thread? The game was running on development hardware, not final spec hardware. I'm sure there is still a lot of polish going on before its done. And remember that the level is one large island, free and open to explore Grand Theft Auto-style, so I'm sure graphics won't be the same compared to racers on a small 2 mile track.

So what? Far Cry looked better than that and runs in 10x7 - 12x10 on a video card which is almost 4 years old. The background looked painted in, like in low budget movies where actors act against a painted backdrop. Every tree looked the same. So did every building. The cars sounded different, sure... so what? Cars have had distinctive exhaust notes in car games for 10 years now. What're you gonna do next, claim the xbox is great because it can render games in 3d? Like, wow, dude....

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
How many current XBox games run *slow* on the console? How many for the PS2?? Do you even know what you're talking about? IF a console game EVAR ran slow, it would get slammed in reviews, it wouldn't sell a single copy and the developer would lose credibility and MS/Sony would bitch them out two and think twice about renewing their license. Even Gran Turismo 4 on an "old" PS2 runs at 60fps. I WISH we had that level of reliability on the PC, but I know its next to impossbile--too many variations across systems.

Slow meaning outdated. Low poly count, low resolution capabilities, low details, etc.

Console gamers don't care about that, only us tech geeks do (I sold my XBox after a few months so I'm more of a tech geek myself!) As long as it runs smooth as butter it passes the test.

It'll be interesting to see how the console vs. PC resolution debate carries on once HDTV enters the picture. The last time consoles and PCs were matched was back when the original 3Dfx Voodoo challenged Sony's Playstation (both ran at 480 lines) and the Voodoo kicked butt thanks to better speed and bilinear filtering. When the PS2 upped the poly count and included shaders, PC games still looked prettier because we were running at 800x600 and 1024x768. Now that ALL Xbox 360 games will support a minimum of 1280x720, the games will be more comparable on resolution.

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: UNCjigga

Originally posted by: isekii
why do all the cars have the same engine noise ?

Because you have bad ears? The GT40 sounded nice, and the Lamboroghini engine was quite distinct, as was the Viper's. Only cars that sounded same to me were the Merc and the Aston maybe.

Did you guys even read the first 5 posts in the thread? The game was running on development hardware, not final spec hardware. I'm sure there is still a lot of polish going on before its done. And remember that the level is one large island, free and open to explore Grand Theft Auto-style, so I'm sure graphics won't be the same compared to racers on a small 2 mile track.

So what? Far Cry looked better than that and runs in 10x7 - 12x10 on a video card which is almost 4 years old. The background looked painted in, like in low budget movies where actors act against a painted backdrop. Every tree looked the same. So did every building. The cars sounded different, sure... so what? Cars have had distinctive exhaust notes in car games for 10 years now. What're you gonna do next, claim the xbox is great because it can render games in 3d? Like, wow, dude....

Try running through the FarCry levels at 100mph and see what kinda framerate you get!

 

[myusername]

what's with the edits right before the driver ate sheetmetal?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: myusername
what's with the edits right before the driver ate sheetmetal?

I'm guessing crash physics look bad and/or are unfinished.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: UNCjiggathis thread has degenerated into another PC vs. console war

Well of course it has... Gurck has entered the fray. :roll:

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: UNCjiggathis thread has degenerated into another PC vs. console war

Well of course it has... Gurck has entered the fray. :roll:

Sorry to disrupt the circle jerk guys With a little concentration I'm sure you can get your strokes back & finish up... of course, I wouldn't want to touch the xbox after that, but... to each his own, I suppose

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: DonVito
That's fine, so long as you don't mind playing at 5 FPS. I could only play Far Cry at 800 x 600 on a 9700 Pro, which is something close to twice as fast as your ti4600.

You're doing something wrong, FC runs in 10x7, v.high detail on the 4600, 12x10 med detail.

UNC, I'm not about to buy xbox controllers, thanks for the heads up though... Will all those upgrades make games look as bad as the video you linked? :laugh:

Whatever floats your boat, I guess, but FC only runs at 21.7 FPS on your card at 12x10, even with a pretty quick CPU. Even the 32 FPS you get at 10x7 can't be steady, either. My 9700 Pro could run just fine at 10x7 for the most part, but became unplayable when there was a lot of action onscreen.

Owned.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: DonVito
That's fine, so long as you don't mind playing at 5 FPS. I could only play Far Cry at 800 x 600 on a 9700 Pro, which is something close to twice as fast as your ti4600.

You're doing something wrong, FC runs in 10x7, v.high detail on the 4600, 12x10 med detail.

UNC, I'm not about to buy xbox controllers, thanks for the heads up though... Will all those upgrades make games look as bad as the video you linked? :laugh:

Whatever floats your boat, I guess, but FC only runs at 21.7 FPS on your card at 12x10, even with a pretty quick CPU. Even the 32 FPS you get at 10x7 can't be steady, either. My 9700 Pro could run just fine at 10x7 for the most part, but became unplayable when there was a lot of action onscreen.

Owned.

Yeah, you did pretty much "own" yourself by ignoring first-hand testimony that it runs fine

Btw, you never did answer - how many cars would you buy?

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: DonVito
That's fine, so long as you don't mind playing at 5 FPS. I could only play Far Cry at 800 x 600 on a 9700 Pro, which is something close to twice as fast as your ti4600.

You're doing something wrong, FC runs in 10x7, v.high detail on the 4600, 12x10 med detail.

UNC, I'm not about to buy xbox controllers, thanks for the heads up though... Will all those upgrades make games look as bad as the video you linked? :laugh:

Whatever floats your boat, I guess, but FC only runs at 21.7 FPS on your card at 12x10, even with a pretty quick CPU. Even the 32 FPS you get at 10x7 can't be steady, either. My 9700 Pro could run just fine at 10x7 for the most part, but became unplayable when there was a lot of action onscreen.

Owned.

Yeah, you did pretty much "own" yourself by ignoring first-hand testimony that it runs fine

I own three very capable PC's. I've owned a couple 9700 PRO's in the past. I own Far Cry. So, MY first hand experience says that you are completely full of crap, as the article proves.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: DonVito
That's fine, so long as you don't mind playing at 5 FPS. I could only play Far Cry at 800 x 600 on a 9700 Pro, which is something close to twice as fast as your ti4600.

You're doing something wrong, FC runs in 10x7, v.high detail on the 4600, 12x10 med detail.

UNC, I'm not about to buy xbox controllers, thanks for the heads up though... Will all those upgrades make games look as bad as the video you linked? :laugh:

Whatever floats your boat, I guess, but FC only runs at 21.7 FPS on your card at 12x10, even with a pretty quick CPU. Even the 32 FPS you get at 10x7 can't be steady, either. My 9700 Pro could run just fine at 10x7 for the most part, but became unplayable when there was a lot of action onscreen.

Owned.

Yeah, you did pretty much "own" yourself by ignoring first-hand testimony that it runs fine

I own three very capable PC's. I've owned a couple 9700 PRO's in the past. I own Far Cry. So, MY first hand experience says that you are completely full of crap, as the article proves.

It runs great. I don't have fraps, but if 32 fps is what I'm getting, I guess that's plenty. On the other hand, I get an estimated 15 average in GTA3 in any resolution over 8x6

 

[0roo0roo]

nothing below 60fps is decent pc gaming for fps. unless of course you got low standards.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
nothing below 60fps is decent pc gaming for fps. unless of course you got low standards.

I also considered 20-30 fine in WoW before I quit (WoW has an in-game FPS display), I'm thinking the crowd who requires 60 (or more) fps is the same crowd claiming only $3k+ Alienware PCs can play games, and that they have to be upgraded every 6 months

 

[0roo0roo]

not at all. if one needs to sacrifice picture quality for fps because your card is not up to task, so be it. that is what the graphical settings are for. sacrificing game play for prettiness is stupid.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
nothing below 60fps is decent pc gaming for fps. unless of course you got low standards.

I also considered 20-30 fine in WoW before I quit (WoW has an in-game FPS display), I'm thinking the crowd who requires 60 (or more) fps is the same crowd claiming only $3k+ Alienware PCs can play games, and that they have to be upgraded every 6 months

you're absolutely blind if you think 20fps looks fine. The difference between 20 and 60 is night and day. Also, don't forget the idea of MINIMUM frame rate. If you're averaging 20, it probably dips below 10, which is absolutely appauling. I'll take a few less details and quicker rates any day.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
How many current XBox games run *slow* on the console? How many for the PS2?? Do you even know what you're talking about? IF a console game EVAR ran slow, it would get slammed in reviews, it wouldn't sell a single copy and the developer would lose credibility and MS/Sony would bitch them out two and think twice about renewing their license. Even Gran Turismo 4 on an "old" PS2 runs at 60fps. I WISH we had that level of reliability on the PC, but I know its next to impossbile--too many variations across systems.

Slow meaning outdated. Low poly count, low resolution capabilities, low details, etc.

some people dont beleive that graphics are the be all and end all of a game,

id much rather take good gameplay and story over the best graphics

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
nothing below 60fps is decent pc gaming for fps. unless of course you got low standards.

I also considered 20-30 fine in WoW before I quit (WoW has an in-game FPS display), I'm thinking the crowd who requires 60 (or more) fps is the same crowd claiming only $3k+ Alienware PCs can play games, and that they have to be upgraded every 6 months

you're absolutely blind if you think 20fps looks fine. The difference between 20 and 60 is night and day. Also, don't forget the idea of MINIMUM frame rate. If you're averaging 20, it probably dips below 10, which is absolutely appauling. I'll take a few less details and quicker rates any day.

I must have bad eyes then :roll: Odd that many motion pictures are 24fps, which matches what the human eye can see Movies suck, yeah? All choppy and such~ :laugh: God you fanboys will tell yourselves anything to justify making a few unethical companies even richer, it's like watching lemmings go off a cliff. Btw, as I told wingznut in the GH thread, you can go back to your circle jerk the minute I get copies of GTA 3, Vice City & San Andreas which run well on a PC and take advantage of current technology

 

[0roo0roo]

you are surprisingly ignorant about motion and vision considernig how anal you are about "audiophile" sound.
you don't control motion pictures at 24fps. you don't focus on minute details while swinging around madly ..doing 180degree turns in less than a second all with control and precision. captured motion blur which meshes separate frames in 24fps film is fine in motion pictures for fooling the eye because you aren't controlling it and actual precision of item location in a 3d world is irrelevant, it is not fine when you are aiming. and since there is no motion blur to help mesh frames together with game images to fool the eye, jerkiness of perfectly crisp rendered frames is much much more apparent.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
you are surprisingly ignorant about motion and vision considernig how anal you are about "audiophile" sound.
you don't control motion pictures at 24fps. you don't focus on minute details while swinging around madly ..doing 180degree turns in less than a second. captured motion blur which meshes separate frames in 24fps film is fine in motion pictures because you aren't controlling it, it is not fine when you are aiming. and since there is no motion blur with game images to fool the eye, jerkiness is apparent.

I'm not anal at all about "audiophile" sound, it's just an argument, based on putting words in my mouth, that a dull child brainwashed by MTV and Apple might make against me, lacking any real argument in favor of the ipod... now which dull child might that be? Maybe one who also thinks "u" and "ur" are words, doesn't know the meaning of punctuation or capitalization, can't make a post without insulting me and is responsible for some of AT's most famous runon sentences? :laugh: Btw Einstein, what happens during fast action in a movie?

 

[sniperruff]

just calm down people. this thread is like comparing a motocycle to a car.

surely a bike accelerates faster than a car (xbox360 has better graphics for now)

but then you can put 4 people in a car, you don't get rained on, you can put grocery in the trunk, and you won't get knocked over by a yugo (computer can surf the internet, it can burn CD's, you can watch and rip movies with it, plus you can be productive with it... writing paper, doing research, manage money etc etc, which xbox360 can never do)

so there. stop arguing.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
you are surprisingly ignorant about motion and vision considernig how anal you are about "audiophile" sound.
you don't control motion pictures at 24fps. you don't focus on minute details while swinging around madly ..doing 180degree turns in less than a second. captured motion blur which meshes separate frames in 24fps film is fine in motion pictures because you aren't controlling it, it is not fine when you are aiming. and since there is no motion blur with game images to fool the eye, jerkiness is apparent.

I'm not anal at all about "audiophile" sound, it's just an argument, based on putting words in my mouth, that a dull child brainwashed by MTV and Apple might make against me, lacking any real argument in favor of the ipod... now which dull child might that be? Maybe one who also thinks "u" and "ur" are words, doesn't know the meaning of punctuation or capitalization, can't make a post without insulting me and is responsible for some of AT's most famous runon sentences? :laugh: Btw Einstein, what happens during fast action in a movie?

falling back on name calling to cover for your ignorance. ignorance + high standards. what a wonderful combination you have there gurck.
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
you are surprisingly ignorant about motion and vision considernig how anal you are about "audiophile" sound.
you don't control motion pictures at 24fps. you don't focus on minute details while swinging around madly ..doing 180degree turns in less than a second. captured motion blur which meshes separate frames in 24fps film is fine in motion pictures because you aren't controlling it, it is not fine when you are aiming. and since there is no motion blur with game images to fool the eye, jerkiness is apparent.

I'm not anal at all about "audiophile" sound, it's just an argument, based on putting words in my mouth, that a dull child brainwashed by MTV and Apple might make against me, lacking any real argument in favor of the ipod... now which dull child might that be? Maybe one who also thinks "u" and "ur" are words, doesn't know the meaning of punctuation or capitalization, can't make a post without insulting me and is responsible for some of AT's most famous runon sentences? :laugh: Btw Einstein, what happens during fast action in a movie?

falling back on name calling to cover for your ignorance. ignorance + high standards. what a wonderful combination you have there gurck.
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

Said the pot to the kettle! :laugh:

Btw, the link doesn't explain why FC @ 32fps and WoW at ~25 look good to me.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
you are surprisingly ignorant about motion and vision considernig how anal you are about "audiophile" sound.
you don't control motion pictures at 24fps. you don't focus on minute details while swinging around madly ..doing 180degree turns in less than a second. captured motion blur which meshes separate frames in 24fps film is fine in motion pictures because you aren't controlling it, it is not fine when you are aiming. and since there is no motion blur with game images to fool the eye, jerkiness is apparent.

I'm not anal at all about "audiophile" sound, it's just an argument, based on putting words in my mouth, that a dull child brainwashed by MTV and Apple might make against me, lacking any real argument in favor of the ipod... now which dull child might that be? Maybe one who also thinks "u" and "ur" are words, doesn't know the meaning of punctuation or capitalization, can't make a post without insulting me and is responsible for some of AT's most famous runon sentences? :laugh: Btw Einstein, what happens during fast action in a movie?

falling back on name calling to cover for your ignorance. ignorance + high standards. what a wonderful combination you have there gurck.
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

Said the pot to the kettle! :laugh:

Btw, the link doesn't explain why FC @ 32fps and WoW at ~25 look good to me.

for the same reason my dog thinks licking his ass is an ok thing to do. he doesn't know any better. frankly u should be ashmed of yourself. a pc snob argueing that 25fps is enough? lol