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

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: 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.

Not only that (actually I didn't end up playing through much of the game), but it ran like crap too. I remember choppy framerates (30fps and well below, at times) on my 9700 Pro, which wasn't exactly low-end at the time (especially compared to what was in the Xbox). :roll:

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
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.

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.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying regarding Xbox and all, but I have to say few console games offer the quality that PC games do. Consoles have good racing games and Halo was a plus IMO (played on PC primarily, stupid gamepads!), but did anything as in-depth and engaging as HL1/HL2 come out on console? No. What about COD or MOH? Nope, they were ported AFTER they kicked ass on PC.

Consoles are tempting to me because the games are getting better, the hardware is getting better, and you spend $400 at ONCE and can play games well for years to come. PC's are pretty much the opposite But until console games are on/above par with PC games, count me out!

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: 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.

The 2nd gen cry engine would be able to port to 360 pretty easily, but outdoor scenes would need far more texture space than the ~350MB the Xbox has to offer.

I think both MS and sony are making massive mistakes by not putting in the extra 512MB to bring them up to current PC standards.

State of the art unified 48 pipeline GPUs that can do AA for free, and a 3 core SMT CPU that can execute 6 simultaneous threads. But then in the same breath.... an underwhelming 512MB of shared memory that even without OS overhead cant meet current game standards for high quality.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: 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.

Not only that (actually I didn't end up playing through much of the game), but it ran like crap too. I remember choppy framerates (30fps and well below, at times) on my 9700 Pro, which wasn't exactly low-end at the time (especially compared to what was in the Xbox). :roll:

It was pretty hard on systems, but I remember being able to play it okay at low res on my Ti4200.
I think SP was fun, but it definitely got old after a while. Never did PC multiplayer, but the console multiplayer was the best! If only you could use a keyboard and mouse!!

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
State of the art unified 48 pipeline GPUs that can do AA for free, and a 3 core SMT CPU that can execute 6 simultaneous threads. But then in the same breath.... an underwhelming 512MB of shared memory that even without OS overhead cant meet current game standards for high quality.

:thumbsup:

 

[PingSpike]

Yeah, when you consider the original xbox only had 64mb of ram I believe the 512mb on this one isn't to big of a surprise. I'm not sure why they choose to shortchange the ram so much on consoles...its limitations become painfully obvious in titles like fable where you had to load a new area every 15 seconds. Plus, memory is pretty cheap these days. But when you're selling something at a loss, you've got to save money on it where you can I guess.

512mb isn't to bad I guess when you consider there's not going to be a lot of extra stuff in the background hogging up ram, and we don't have ultra high resolutions to contend with. But I can see it becoming a big burden to game design just like the 64mb became on the original xbox.

This is also annoying to me since whenever they port a title from console to PC that I might want to pick up, they don't recode anything to take advantage of the buttloads of extra ram the PC has. Theif deadly shadows and fable are what I'm thinking of. I didn't pick those games up after reading the review because they had that console syndrome. I don't think it was to much to ask to alter the loading system of the game to accomidate even old PCs extra memory availability while porting it, but most ports a slap together job.

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

Originally posted by: Acanthus
State of the art unified 48 pipeline GPUs that can do AA for free, and a 3 core SMT CPU that can execute 6 simultaneous threads. But then in the same breath.... an underwhelming 512MB of shared memory that even without OS overhead cant meet current game standards for high quality.

:thumbsup:

I've been saying that since e3

but then the console fanboys all tell me that consoles have better memory optimization.

Yea, right, whatever, NOT

 

[gi0rgi0]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: apoppin

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

Damn, 18 months! I guess thats when ill pick one up then. Should be like $200

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.

 

[gi0rgi0]

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...

BS! You know you were thinking about that controller for you own damn self. LOL!!!!

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: gi0rgi0

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...

BS! You know you were thinking about that controller for you own damn self. LOL!!!!

:laugh:

 

[Pocatello]

You could update the latest drivers from ATi that boosted so much performance for the Doom III engine games, oh wait, I don't think you can with the XBOX 360.

 

[Munky]

WTH is the point of comparing consoles to PC's? Its like saying "Yeah, that new bike is pretty fast, but it's still no match for my car that can do 0-60 mph in 4 seconds while stuffing my fat face with coffee."

Consoles are not direct competitors to PC's. I like PC's for FPS games, but I'd still take a PS2 for racing or sports games over anything the PC has to offer. Consoles are fixed hardware, and have no OS overhead/bloat, so 512mb should be enough for console games. Most games today dont even require 512mb of video mem at 1600x1200 + AA/AF, so memory should not be a problem for 1280x720. Just look at what the PS2 can do with only 32mb in games like GTA:VC, while a PC would need way higher requirements to run it smoothly.

You can't expect console launch titles to take full advantage of the hardware - it just doesnt happen. Give it a bout a year, and then you can decide what the xbox360 is really capable of.

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: munky
WTH is the point of comparing consoles to PC's? Its like saying "Yeah, that new bike is pretty fast, but it's still no match for my car that can do 0-60 mph in 4 seconds while stuffing my fat face with coffee."

Consoles are not direct competitors to PC's. I like PC's for FPS games, but I'd still take a PS2 for racing or sports games over anything the PC has to offer. Consoles are fixed hardware, and have no OS overhead/bloat, so 512mb should be enough for console games. Most games today dont even require 512mb of video mem at 1600x1200 + AA/AF, so memory should not be a problem for 1280x720. Just look at what the PS2 can do with only 32mb in games like GTA:VC, while a PC would need way higher requirements to run it smoothly.

You can't expect console launch titles to take full advantage of the hardware - it just doesnt happen. Give it a bout a year, and then you can decide what the xbox360 is really capable of.

FEAR and BF2 use well over 512mb of RAM all by themselves.

 

[route66]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
You could update the latest drivers from ATi that boosted so much performance for the Doom III engine games, oh wait, I don't think you can with the XBOX 360.

Unfortunately, it appears that Microsoft brought the 'release-now-patch-later' mentality to the XBOX360. That's my biggest fear with forcing Live support to each game, that the patch culture will latch onto console players as acceptable behaviour.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: munky
WTH is the point of comparing consoles to PC's? Its like saying "Yeah, that new bike is pretty fast, but it's still no match for my car that can do 0-60 mph in 4 seconds while stuffing my fat face with coffee."

Consoles are not direct competitors to PC's. I like PC's for FPS games, but I'd still take a PS2 for racing or sports games over anything the PC has to offer. Consoles are fixed hardware, and have no OS overhead/bloat, so 512mb should be enough for console games. Most games today dont even require 512mb of video mem at 1600x1200 + AA/AF, so memory should not be a problem for 1280x720. Just look at what the PS2 can do with only 32mb in games like GTA:VC, while a PC would need way higher requirements to run it smoothly.

You can't expect console launch titles to take full advantage of the hardware - it just doesnt happen. Give it a bout a year, and then you can decide what the xbox360 is really capable of.

FEAR and BF2 use well over 512mb of RAM all by themselves.

Again, fixed hardwere brings some limitations, but also allows more possibilities, you just have to think differently than a PC developer. For example, you dont need to have the whole game level loaded in ram - you can stream data directly off the optical disc, that's how it was done on the PS2 in games like GTA3.

 

[zephyrprime]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned opengl yet. Does the Xbox 360 even support opengl? I'd seriously doubt that carmack made a full directx port of the doom3 engine for the xbox 360. Maybe Q4 is running all it's graphics through a translation layer on the xbox 360.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: munky
WTH is the point of comparing consoles to PC's? Its like saying "Yeah, that new bike is pretty fast, but it's still no match for my car that can do 0-60 mph in 4 seconds while stuffing my fat face with coffee."

Consoles are not direct competitors to PC's. I like PC's for FPS games, but I'd still take a PS2 for racing or sports games over anything the PC has to offer. Consoles are fixed hardware, and have no OS overhead/bloat, so 512mb should be enough for console games. Most games today dont even require 512mb of video mem at 1600x1200 + AA/AF, so memory should not be a problem for 1280x720. Just look at what the PS2 can do with only 32mb in games like GTA:VC, while a PC would need way higher requirements to run it smoothly.

You can't expect console launch titles to take full advantage of the hardware - it just doesnt happen. Give it a bout a year, and then you can decide what the xbox360 is really capable of.

FEAR and BF2 use well over 512mb of RAM all by themselves.

FEAR and BF2 actually exceed 1GB of RAM usage on the PC. I have 2GB of RAM and FEAR has used up to 1.5 GB itself at times!

512MB of GDDR3 is cutting it (too) close IMO on the consoles; a gig would have been way more 'comfortable' since this memory must also be shared as system and GPU memory. But again it's all about cost and they have to save money somewhere.

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying regarding Xbox and all, but I have to say few console games offer the quality that PC games do. Consoles have good racing games and Halo was a plus IMO (played on PC primarily, stupid gamepads!), but did anything as in-depth and engaging as HL1/HL2 come out on console? No. What about COD or MOH? Nope, they were ported AFTER they kicked ass on PC.

Consoles are tempting to me because the games are getting better, the hardware is getting better, and you spend $400 at ONCE and can play games well for years to come. PC's are pretty much the opposite But until console games are on/above par with PC games, count me out!

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I find the depth level in console games to be way higher. Although I'm bored of conventional RPG's, I'd be strained to find a game with the depth of Final Fantasy VII, Chrono Cross, Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3, Xenosaga, etc on the PC. Or a racing simulation as in depth as Gran Turismo 4. Or any action games at all in the vein of the Resident Evil games.

Personally I just find console games more engrossing. HL2 was a fun romp, Far Cry was a blast, but otherwise on the PC it's basically shooters, MMORPG's (which aren't my cup of tea), strategy games (I do love Blizzard games ) and a few other disparate genres.

You'd be hard pressed to find a hack n' slash action game with the depth of a game like Devil May Cry (1 or 3), Ninja Gaiden or God of War. Or a game that can leave you in awe like Ico or Shadow of the Colossus. Or any good fighting games at all.

Heck even Halo2 is a console exclusive, as will be Halo 3 (most likely).

I just don't see the variety of games on the PC like those that exist on consoles.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: munky
WTH is the point of comparing consoles to PC's? Its like saying "Yeah, that new bike is pretty fast, but it's still no match for my car that can do 0-60 mph in 4 seconds while stuffing my fat face with coffee."

Consoles are not direct competitors to PC's. I like PC's for FPS games, but I'd still take a PS2 for racing or sports games over anything the PC has to offer. Consoles are fixed hardware, and have no OS overhead/bloat, so 512mb should be enough for console games. Most games today dont even require 512mb of video mem at 1600x1200 + AA/AF, so memory should not be a problem for 1280x720. Just look at what the PS2 can do with only 32mb in games like GTA:VC, while a PC would need way higher requirements to run it smoothly.

You can't expect console launch titles to take full advantage of the hardware - it just doesnt happen. Give it a bout a year, and then you can decide what the xbox360 is really capable of.

FEAR and BF2 use well over 512mb of RAM all by themselves.

FEAR and BF2 actually exceed 1GB of RAM usage on the PC. I have 2GB of RAM and FEAR has used up to 1.5 GB itself at times!

512MB of GDDR3 is cutting it (too) close IMO on the consoles; a gig would have been way more 'comfortable' since this memory must also be shared as system and GPU memory. But again it's all about cost and they have to save money somewhere.

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying regarding Xbox and all, but I have to say few console games offer the quality that PC games do. Consoles have good racing games and Halo was a plus IMO (played on PC primarily, stupid gamepads!), but did anything as in-depth and engaging as HL1/HL2 come out on console? No. What about COD or MOH? Nope, they were ported AFTER they kicked ass on PC.

Consoles are tempting to me because the games are getting better, the hardware is getting better, and you spend $400 at ONCE and can play games well for years to come. PC's are pretty much the opposite But until console games are on/above par with PC games, count me out!

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I find the depth level in console games to be way higher. Although I'm bored of conventional RPG's, I'd be strained to find a game with the depth of Final Fantasy VII, Chrono Cross, Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3, Xenosaga, etc on the PC. Or a racing simulation as in depth as Gran Turismo 4. Or any action games at all in the vein of the Resident Evil games.

Personally I just find console games more engrossing. HL2 was a fun romp, Far Cry was a blast, but otherwise on the PC it's basically shooters, MMORPG's (which aren't my cup of tea), strategy games (I do love Blizzard games ) and a few other disparate genres.

You'd be hard pressed to find a hack n' slash action game with the depth of a game like Devil May Cry (1 or 3), Ninja Gaiden or God of War. Or a game that can leave you in awe like Ico or Shadow of the Colossus. Or any good fighting games at all.

Heck even Halo2 is a console exclusive, as will be Halo 3 (most likely).

I just don't see the variety of games on the PC like those that exist on consoles.

I doubt that there are any Hack and Slash games as fun as Diablo 2 for consoles.

 

[gi0rgi0]

Yay for the PS2 still. I just got RE:4, Shadow of the collosus and Guitar Hero and they are a blast. Wont find that on the box or pc. Games arent just
based on graphics. So I guess thats why im confused when it comes to x360 fanboys.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Hacp
I doubt that there are any Hack and Slash games as fun as Diablo 2 for consoles.

Diablo 2 was more of a hack and slash RPG. It was very fun and addictive, but it's also like 5 years old (plus it's been ported to consoles I believe). Some of us have moved on from Diablo 2 .

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Or any good fighting games at all.

I hope that one day there will be a good fighting game for pc (that doesn't use robots)

 

[gi0rgi0]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: Hacp
I doubt that there are any Hack and Slash games as fun as Diablo 2 for consoles.

Diablo 2 was more of a hack and slash RPG. It was very fun and addictive, but it's also like 5 years old (plus it's been ported to consoles I believe). Some of us have moved on from Diablo 2 .

Kinda makes me want to throw isn the ol' D2
Man that game is a classic

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: edplayer

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Or any good fighting games at all.

I hope that one day there will be a good fighting game for pc (that doesn't use robots)

check this game out. its fun.

http://www.shreksuperslam.com/

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: JRW
Considering Call of Duty 2 bogs even the highest end PCs at times yet runs at a solid 60FPS on Xbox 360.

What'cha talkin' 'bout, Willis? My gaming system runs it just fine - installed and played it multiplayer without fiddling with any settings. Looks great to my eyes and plays perfectly smooth. My gaming system hardware is a P4 2.53@3.33, 2GB RAM, Geforce FX5900XT. Quite a modest video card by today's standards.

BTW, if anyone was at the Kick It LAN VIII in Green Bay over the past weekend, I was the one kicking arse in COD2 and shouting out at the top of my lungs, "GIMME SOME MORE NAZIS TO KILL, I NEED AN MP44!!!" (I was Allies using BAR - sometimes scoring as high as whole Axis team added up and when I picked up an MP44 from a dead Nazi, would put some hurt on the other team).

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I think both MS and sony are making massive mistakes by not putting in the extra 512MB to bring them up to current PC standards.

Well, software companies will just have to not put out bloatware then. Also, one big advantage of consoles is that most games work properly right out of the box (wasn't there another BF2 patch yesterday?).

 

[hans030390]

It was said that it wasn't ported very well, because everything else looks and runs great on the 360.