Why does Quake 4 run so poorly on the Xbox 360?

[SickBeast]

I just read the GameSpot review of Quake 4, and they said that the framerate dropped miserably quite often. Is this just bad programming, or can the ATI chip in the thing not handle Q4 at 1280x720? It doesn't make sense to me; even a 9800Pro can run that game at 30FPS at that resolution!

 

[5150Joker]

I haven't read much about the xbox 360, but is it capable of running OGL games or did id port it to directx or whatever that console runs?

Edit: The Gamespot review had this to say regarding performance:

Despite the 360's stature as the most powerful console on the market, it just can't keep up with this game's demanding visuals (which probably speaks more to the lackluster quality of the game's translation from the PC than to the system's power, judging by how well the 360's two other first-person shooters look by comparison).

Just seems like a bad port is all.

 

[kravmaga]

It's odd because John Carmac and CO made such a big fuss about giving all their attention to the Xbox 360, saying something like "the Xbox 360 will now be my primary developing platform" or something or other. It's kind of sad really considering how lackluster Doom 3 was (or Quake 4 for that matter IMO)

 

[RobertR1]

Considering how well the other games are running, it's likely a bad job by Raven/Id on porting it over. Ofcourse, it's much "cooler" to bash Xbox 360, thus it's Microsoft's fault.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Actually they spent a long time getting Q4 ready for the 360. It wasnt a hack job.
They developed both the PC and 360 versions concurrently.

If the PC version runs so well I dont see why optimizing for ONE video card (Xbox360's) would result in poor results at all.
Considering both versions were in development the same amount of time.

I think if anyone could have exploited the 360 hardware early on to at least moderate success it would have been id. Looks like the 360 might not be all its cracked up to be.

Actually the articles I've been reading on the new consoles lately have been bashing both the PS3 and 360 for not either being truley next gen.

 

[johnnqq]

john carmac is rich enough to give away ferraris (BEFORE quake 3). he probalby doesn't really care at all about quake 4.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Actually they spent a long time getting Q4 ready for the 360. It wasnt a hack job.
They developed both the PC and 360 versions concurrently.

If the PC version runs so well I dont see why optimizing for ONE video card (Xbox360's) would result in poor results at all.
Considering both versions were in development the same amount of time.

I think if anyone could have exploited the 360 hardware early on to at least moderate success it would have been id. Looks like the 360 might not be all its cracked up to be.

Actually the articles I've been reading on the new consoles lately have been bashing both the PS3 and 360 for not either being truley next gen.

ya right. Spread your fud elsewhere

 

[nitromullet]

"It's the best development environment I've seen on a console."
?id Software's John Carmack

Link

~hmmm?~

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Actually they spent a long time getting Q4 ready for the 360. It wasnt a hack job.
They developed both the PC and 360 versions concurrently.

If the PC version runs so well I dont see why optimizing for ONE video card (Xbox360's) would result in poor results at all.
Considering both versions were in development the same amount of time.

I think if anyone could have exploited the 360 hardware early on to at least moderate success it would have been id. Looks like the 360 might not be all its cracked up to be.

Actually the articles I've been reading on the new consoles lately have been bashing both the PS3 and 360 for not either being truley next gen.

ya right. Spread your fud elsewhere

I dunno... I'd like to hear more about this if true. People waited in line last night and this morning for the lucky priviledge of forking over $400 for this thing. If it isn't true than it's a non-issue, if it is than it's not FUD. I've see a 360 playing CoD2 at CompUsa, it was nice, but my PC looks better. I was a tad disappointed for something that's supposedly years ahead of PC's. If that's the future of PC gaming, I guess they plan on making games look worse next year. Obvioulsy, it could also be the software that hasn't been written to take full advantage of the hardware yet, so we'll see.

 

[Todd33]

It could be the CPU, how many developer know how to use a multe core and somewhat underpowered Power PC chip?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Actually they spent a long time getting Q4 ready for the 360. It wasnt a hack job.
They developed both the PC and 360 versions concurrently.

If the PC version runs so well I dont see why optimizing for ONE video card (Xbox360's) would result in poor results at all.
Considering both versions were in development the same amount of time.

I think if anyone could have exploited the 360 hardware early on to at least moderate success it would have been id. Looks like the 360 might not be all its cracked up to be.

Yet the other FPS'es and other games run very smoothly on the Xbox360. How many cores do you think Q4 uses? My guess is one, plus a second core for sound (like all the games do AFAIK).

Actually the articles I've been reading on the new consoles lately have been bashing both the PS3 and 360 for not either being truley next gen.

This is stupid. The PS3 and Xbox360 are leagues ahead of the Xbox1 and PS2. You can compare them to PC all you want, but until game developers start actually using all of the functionality of these new consoles, there will be some overlap with last generation.

Have you not paid attention to anything in the history of consoles? Launch titles are always inferior in terms of graphics and optimization compared to later titles; develpers are still getting a hold of how to use the console, how to optimize for it, etc.

As a general rule, launch titles are usually not really representative of the next gen experience, more like a halfway point. A perfect example of this halfway point is in NBA 2K6 for Xbox360, where the character models are next-gen, but the stadium/floors are recycles from the Xbox version. It won't be until 2K7 that it gets an entire overhaul for next gen consoles.

With 512MB of DDR3 @ 1400 Mhz, split between the GPU and CPU's, it is going to take awhile for develpers to figure out how to optimally allocate this memory, not to mention 3 cores which will eventually be used (or at least two), etc.


I find it funny that because Q4 performs poorly on the Xbox360 some people assume the onboard ATI graphics hardware is crap.

For the record, many/most PC developers make for subpar console developers. Some people may revere Carmack as a god but I personally haven't seem him prove he's worth a damn in the console arena. Let's see what other developers do over the next few years before we pass judgement on the hardware on the Xbox360 or the PS3.

I remember when the PS2 came out everyone said that the hardware was too hard to program for, etc. Then when Metal Gear Solid 2 came out everyone proclaimed that this was about as good as it was going to get. Then, when MGS3, God of War and other titles came out, everyone was amazed by how much gas the PS2 had left in the tank. And the recent Resident Evil 4 port that nobody thought possible is further proof of the longevity of the PS2.

The point is that it's silly to sell consoles short. By giving developers fixed hardware to work with, they come up with new and innovative ways to extract performance out of it. You don't get sloppy jobs like F.E.A.R. on the PC where you need the absolute latest and greatest to play the game, 2GB of RAM to play without stutters, etc.

I think I'll steer clear of console related fanboyism here on Video in the future anyways, since so many PC users lamenting 1280X720 as a terribly low resolution hurts my ears.

Consoles survived fine at 320X240 (SNES, PSX) and 640X480 (N64 with horrible blurry filtering, Dreamcast, Gamecube, PS2, most Xbox titles). 1280X720 is a monumental step forward. The resolution isn't what limits graphics on consoles, it's shoddy developers.

Once Konami/Capcom/Squaresoft/RARE/etc. get working, all of a sudden everyone will realize once again why consoles are the biggest game in town.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Actually they spent a long time getting Q4 ready for the 360. It wasnt a hack job.
They developed both the PC and 360 versions concurrently.

They got final dev kits a few months before the game came out- it was certainly a hack job by console standards.

Once Konami/Capcom/Squaresoft/RARE/etc. get working, all of a sudden everyone will realize once again why consoles are the biggest game in town.

I think Rare was thoroughly owned by Bizzare for this round in terms of visual presentation.

 

[JRW]

Considering Call of Duty 2 bogs even the highest end PCs at times yet runs at a solid 60FPS on Xbox 360 ..I think its safe to say Quake 4 just wasnt ported very well. Cant expect Launch titles to fully utilize a consoles power.

 

[Phluxed]

COD2 on the Xbox had the textures dramatically reduced. I'm sorry, but the graphics in the 360 are painful when compared to the PC. It's just a fact. The PC is years ahead of consoles.

As for Quake 4. Yes it is a bad port, just like Doom 3 more or less was.

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: Phluxed
COD2 on the Xbox had the textures dramatically reduced. I'm sorry, but the graphics in the 360 are painful when compared to the PC. It's just a fact. The PC is years ahead of consoles.

As for Quake 4. Yes it is a bad port, just like Doom 3 more or less was.

I was just watching videos and looking at pics and I have to say, COD2 for the 360 completely underwhelmed me after playing the PC version on a 7800.

Also, launch period is the only time consoles have to shine. In a year PCs have dramatically increased in capability and leave consoles in the dust.

Remember that Crytek2 demo? That totally owns anything PS3 or 360 will be capable of.

 

[ZobarStyl]

All conjecture as to what the performance of the XBox360 is aside, it's obvious that it's just a bad port, which can happen in both directions (Halo for PC, lest we forget).

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl
All conjecture as to what the performance of the XBox360 is aside, it's obvious that it's just a bad port, which can happen in both directions (Halo for PC, lest we forget).

Whats Halo for PC?



Well actually, I never did play halo... PC or xbox

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: kravmaga
It's odd because John Carmac and CO made such a big fuss about giving all their attention to the Xbox 360, saying something like "the Xbox 360 will now be my primary developing platform" or something or other. It's kind of sad really considering how lackluster Doom 3 was (or Quake 4 for that matter IMO)

John Carmack also said Doom3 would be a great game.
:thumbsdown:

crappy port

the xbox360's potential hasn't been tapped yet . . . give it another 18 months.

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: apoppin

the xbox360's potential hasn't been tapped yet . . . give it another 18 months.

Originally posted by: compgeek89
Also, launch period is the only time consoles have to shine. In a year PCs have dramatically increased in capability and leave consoles in the dust.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: kravmaga
It's odd because John Carmac and CO made such a big fuss about giving all their attention to the Xbox 360, saying something like "the Xbox 360 will now be my primary developing platform" or something or other. It's kind of sad really considering how lackluster Doom 3 was (or Quake 4 for that matter IMO)

John Carmack also said Doom3 would be a great game.
:thumbsdown:

crappy port

the xbox360's potential hasn't been tapped yet . . . give it another 18 months.

It wouldve been if they sticked to their original ideas. In the end, they over simplified doom3 ALOT. You will know what i mean when you read making of doom3.

However, I think its just bad port. Dont know if it could be fixed.
I might grab a console. maybe PS3 because of blu ray, 7 usb ports, unreal3 engine based games, and that dildo looking controller for my GF...

 

[Keeir]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: apoppin

the xbox360's potential hasn't been tapped yet . . . give it another 18 months.

Originally posted by: compgeek89
Also, launch period is the only time consoles have to shine. In a year PCs have dramatically increased in capability and leave consoles in the dust.

I think that depends alot on personal preference.
I don't consider graphical prowess to be the defining criteria to judge a gaming experience

PCs will always be ahead as long as you have alot more resolution and alot more money to throw at the problem

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: kravmaga
It's odd because John Carmac and CO made such a big fuss about giving all their attention to the Xbox 360, saying something like "the Xbox 360 will now be my primary developing platform" or something or other. It's kind of sad really considering how lackluster Doom 3 was (or Quake 4 for that matter IMO)

John Carmack also said Doom3 would be a great game.
:thumbsdown:

crappy port

the xbox360's potential hasn't been tapped yet . . . give it another 18 months.

It wouldve been if they sticked to their original ideas. In the end, they over simplified doom3 ALOT. You will know what i mean when you read making of doom3.

However, I think its just bad port. Dont know if it could be fixed.
I might grab a console. maybe PS3 because of blu ray, 7 usb ports, unreal3 engine based games, and that dildo looking controller for my GF...

you mean if they has a team that didn't concentrate solely on GFX - D3 is NOTHING but a "showcase" for the D3 engine.

and try Q4 being a RUSHED, crappy port . . . if there is no AGP nextGen top videocard, i'm dumping PC gaming . . . consoles will blow away PC gaming for at least 18 months anyway.

 

[NokiaDude]

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl
All conjecture as to what the performance of the XBox360 is aside, it's obvious that it's just a bad port, which can happen in both directions (Halo for PC, lest we forget).

Halo for PC isn't a bad port at all IMO. It just takes a 7800GTX and an X2 3800+ to run at high res and max IQ settings.

 

[Wolfshanze]

I can't speak for Quake-4 on the 360, but I have seen and played CoD2 on both the 360 and my PC at home (see specs in sig-line for my PC).

I don't have the fastest or snazziest computer on the block... all you folks with your PCI-E equipped GeForce 7's have me beat easy... I'm still stuck with 3.0GHz GeForce 6-limited AGP computers on my end. As "old" as my computer is, I can say this with confidence:

I much prefer CoD2 in looks and gameplay on my PC over what I played on the 360.

I realize it's still early in 360 life-span, but if this is supposed to be "the next big thing", or if it's supposed to be a PC-killa, I've got news for the folks at Microsoft... the 360 ain't it. My "old" PC already is outperfoming the 360.... at least in the debut title of CoD2 (and probably in Quake-4 from what I imagine).

What it looks like to me from my limited play-time with the 360, is that it's a console equivelant to CURRENT computers. It certainly ain't next-gen or providing us with something we haven't seen before. In a rush to be "the first" next-gen console, Microsoft may have made the perenial Sega-Dreamcast mistake... not enough "oomph" a year early, and it might well get eclipsed by the PS3 a year later, much like the Dreamcast got trounced by the PS2 when it came out a year after the Dreamcast launch.

Bottom line, the initial 18 game launch on the 360 is underwhelming at best, and certainly no-better then what is already available for PCs. I was playing a BETTER version of CoD2 before the launch of the 360, as I imagine other folks were with Quake-4 as well. Microsoft better start shipping better titles soon, before the 360 becomes the next Dreamcast.

 

[Chacranajxy]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl
All conjecture as to what the performance of the XBox360 is aside, it's obvious that it's just a bad port, which can happen in both directions (Halo for PC, lest we forget).

Whats Halo for PC?



Well actually, I never did play halo... PC or xbox

You're not missing anything... the multiplayer was pretty good, but the single player was atrocious on both systems.