Will Doom 3 spur a revival in the computer hardware industry?

[Brian48]

Didn't read this whole post, so I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but regardless of how good or bad Doom III is going to be, the game itself is not going to be the real money maker for Id. Doom III will very likely be a short, but decent shooter in terms of gameplay. It may or may not sell enough copies to recoupe it's production costs, but that's irrevelant. The vast bulk of the profits will come from the licensing of the engine itself (and game developers are no doubt drooling over it as we speak). Doom III is simply a showcase for it. Sure it'll raise the bar as far as hardware requirements go, but it won't be so high that everyone will be left out. It's the 3rd party game developers that you have worry about. It's those games that will likely force everyone to upgrade.

 

[BoomAM]

Doom3 is going to do what all other antisipated games do.
Its going to be a good game, but no matter how good it is, 80% of the people who buy/play/review it will say its no more than eye candy.
When people have waited for a game that long, it wont matter how good it is, peoples expectations of the game will be higher than what the game is.
Unreal2 is a good example. People waited ages for it, and its a good game, not amazing but not as crap as people make out, and these people wont be able to appriciate the game becuase of their expectations.
Only the people who dont expect much from the game, or younger gamers who havnt experianced the doom games, will truely appriciate the game for what it is.
This is asuming that it is a good game bty.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: BoomAM
Doom3 is going to do what all other antisipated games do.
Its going to be a good game, but no matter how good it is, 80% of the people who buy/play/review it will say its no more than eye candy.
When people have waited for a game that long, it wont matter how good it is, peoples expectations of the game will be higher than what the game is.
Unreal2 is a good example. People waited ages for it, and its a good game, not amazing but not as crap as people make out, and these people wont be able to appriciate the game becuase of their expectations.
Only the people who dont expect much from the game, or younger gamers who havnt experianced the doom games, will truely appriciate the game for what it is.
This is asuming that it is a good game bty.

::COUGH::max payne::COUGH::

 

[jm0ris0n]

I feel not the industry as a whole. BUT those people running their DDR GF1 & GF2 will most likely upgrade their system.

I remember how I made sure I had some massive system power before I even tried to run quake 3! New ID game = kick-ass upgrade time

 

[FearoftheNight]

I like Curly's comments. Step back and just enjoy games for funfactors. There will always be old ass games that are fun to me i.e. Tetris, Super Mario Kart SNES, Chrono Trigger SNES.

 

[everman]

Doom3 is more like a tech demo of the Doom3 engine. They hope to make loads of cash licensing it like they have with previous engines. IF there are great games running the Doom3 engine then there probably will be an increase in people interested in more powerful hardware, but those games will not be released for still quite some time after Doom3 is released. (if we see any worthy games that is).

 

[dawks]

Why all the discussion about DirectX.. Did Carmack suddenly get sick and switch APIs? OpenGL is far superior, and Carmack knows it, hence why he is a OpenGL exclusive programmer. (Although he might be using DirectSound for the audio portion of the game..)

 

[Mavrick]

I won't, and I don't know a single person who will

Unless you have a really large amount of money and you can't think of any other way of spending it, spending 500$ on an upgrade is too much for a game.

 

[ultimatebob]

Sure, why not? I just built myself a new gaming system, for the sole purpose of playing Simcity 4 and UT 2003!

 

[FrodoB]

In my opinion computer gaming was a lot more fun about 8 - 10 years ago. The games were more fun and more imaginative despite the subpar graphics. Not many games impress me anymore. And after all these years, it's still requires a certain degree of "know how" to get many of these games to work properly. Until this changes, computer gaming will remain a small niche in the whole scheme of things. Just think about how much time we spend downloading new drivers, new patches, upgrading, etc. Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but I just don't care for that stuff anymore, and I simply don't have the time for it. The only current games that take up some of my time are War Craft 3 and Sim City 4.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Mavrick
I won't, and I don't know a single person who will

Unless you have a really large amount of money and you can't think of any other way of spending it, spending 500$ on an upgrade is too much for a game.

I plan on it... either for SWG or Doom3, which ever comes first... and almost everybody i know will do an upgrade or two as well. I'm by no means a heavy gamer, but i've been holding off for any upgrade for months because i don't play any games really.

 

[Atlantean]

Well before I play it I intend to have the new ati 9800 pro 256 mb edition with ddr2 memory, so hopefully it will be able to handle the game.

 

[BFG10K]

Hardware is always behind games in terms of required performance and Doom3 won't change that. However the good news is that manufacturers are finally starting to realise that nobody cares about fancy features if current games are running at slideshow speeds so hardware releases are starting to leapfrog each other in terms of speed more than they did before.

And no, 20-30 FPS in totally unacceptable, just like gaming below 1024 x 768 is unacceptable. Standards have increased and people simply demand more from their games. Performance/eye candy levels that were acceptable two years ago are not acceptable today.

 

[BFG10K]

Btw, you haven't played Splinter Cell "the way its meant to be played" until you've played it on XBox.

You mean on a crappy low res/low refresh TV with a crappy console controller, at crappy performance levels?

Or on a HDTV which breaks your bank, runs even slower than on the low res TV and still has the same crappy controller?

I'm sorry but consoles are outclassed by PCs when it comes to gaming; there's just no contest. The only thing you could say about console is that they're better for Joe Average since there's nothing to configure on them.

 

[Acanthus]

"Have you bothered reading dev interviews? Instead of focusing on optimizing code for a particular feature set in hardware (a luxury console developers are afforded), they spend their time figuring out what features they can implement on the hardware level without destroying their target market. Any features that need to be done in software need to be addressed to ensure the effect is acceptable visually and on a performance level. Even 20 to 30 fragment programs is considerable (although I think its more than that) when you have code paths for each GPU family from several IHVs. The end result is that game developers end up spending their time on workarounds and compatibility issues instead of pushing any new features."

This should be less of a problem when DX9 is mainstream because all GPUs are fully programable, from the bottom up. Which means there should be a lot less varience in the code paths.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Or on a HDTV which breaks your bank, runs even slower than on the low res TV and still has the same crappy controller?

Running at HDTV levels doesn't change the performance. The game is rendered at its native resolution and downsampled using a flicker filter for output to low res TVs.

DaZ-

Why all the discussion about DirectX.. Did Carmack suddenly get sick and switch APIs? OpenGL is far superior, and Carmack knows it, hence why he is a OpenGL exclusive programmer. (Although he might be using DirectSound for the audio portion of the game..)

At this particular moment OpenGL is quite inferior to DirectX. Of course, with OpenGL you have vendor specific extension support which has allowed it to remain viable, but until the release of OpenGL 2.0 DX9 has a very clear advantage(so does DX8 for that matter). He uses OpenGL at this point because it is cross platform- the main reason and he has been using it all along. People talk about DX versions as they are an easy way to discuss a feature set of a video card or a class of video card. Saying an OpenGL 1.3 board with a list of fifty different vendor specific extensions is a lot more confusing then saying DX8

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
You mean on a crappy low res/low refresh TV with a crappy console controller, at crappy performance levels?

480p with a 60Hz refresh is far from "low" and offers equivalent visuals (factoring in viewing distance) to a PC running 1024x768 @ 85Hz without the hit in performance you'd find on a PC. I find the XBox controller much better than any joypad found on the PC or any other console for that matter. Also, I've yet to find a mouse and keyboard that provides force feedback. Sure it has its limitations in certain game genres, which is why I own a top-of-the-line PC.

And don't even talk about crappy performance levels. I'm sure you enjoyed Splinter Cell at your target resolution of 1600x1200x32 w/ 16x performance AF. You probably had trouble distinguishing the mission briefing slides from actual gameplay. My target resolution isn't as ambitious as yours, and guess what? It still runs like a pig. Oh yah, I have a faster rig than you. On the other hand, my XBox runs SC at a smooth frame rate throughout and never stutters or jerks while providing high levels of detail and lighting effects (which look better on the XBox as well).

Or on a HDTV which breaks your bank, runs even slower than on the low res TV and still has the same crappy controller?

Opposed to a top-of-the-line PC gaming rig and a 21'' monitor that breaks your bank? 480p on the XBox offers no penalty over 480i and gameplay is still smoother than on a high-end PC. High detail levels, AA, and dynamic lighting come for free on the XBox, but they'll cut your frame rate in 1/2 or more on the PC. The "same" crappy controller is still much better suited to SC than a mouse and keyboard. Bunny hopping CS-style in SC = Misson Failed, which must be a huge disappointment to the FPS crowd expecting Quake with night vision goggles and a cat suit mod. You didn't bother to mention positional sound and sound sample quality, which are both far superior on the XBox in Dolby Digital 5.1.

I'm sorry but consoles are outclassed by PCs when it comes to gaming; there's just no contest. The only thing you could say about console is that they're better for Joe Average since there's nothing to configure on them.

Outclassed when it comes to gaming. Hmm.....I guess that would largely depend on what types of games you play. Considering the only games you ever mention are First Person Shooters, its no wonder you feel the way you do. Here's a hint though: Splinter Cell isn't an FPS by definition or design. As for having to "configure" a gaming platform; I don't buy games or gaming rigs to configure them, I buy them to play games. I certainly don't view "configuration time" as some geek badge of honor or a perk associated with PC gaming, I see it as a distraction that takes away from my free time. I'm sure most people look forward to buying a new game hoping they have to spend time troubleshooting and configuring their gaming system before they can play.

Chiz

 

[BoomAM]

Im afraid im going to have to agree with BFG10K here.
A HDTV here in the UK costs around £2000. With that amount of money you could buy a seriously powerful rig.
Splinter Cell sounds no different on PC than it does on a DD5.1 set-up. If you have a decent sound system on your pc.
The Sound Positioning is the same, i personally prefer the PC setup.

Opposed to a top-of-the-line PC gaming rig and a 21'' monitor that breaks your bank? 480p on the XBox offers no penalty over 480i and gameplay is still smoother than on a high-end PC. High detail levels, AA, and dynamic lighting come for free on the XBox, but they'll cut your frame rate in 1/2 or more on the PC. The "same" crappy controller is still much better suited to SC than a mouse and keyboard. Bunny hopping CS-style in SC = Misson Failed, which must be a huge disappointment to the FPS crowd expecting Quake with night vision goggles and a cat suit mod. You didn't bother to mention positional sound and sound sample quality, which are both far superior on the XBox in Dolby Digital 5.1.

The reason that the performance drop is not as significant on a Xbox, or any home console, is because the developer only has the optimise for one hardware setup, where as on pc, he/she has the optimise for thousends of different configs. No doubt if a developer could heavly optimise a game for one system config only, say a athlon1ghz and a GF3, then he/she could make the GFX far better than anything that XBox can handle. Alot of you forget this.
SC is NOT better suited to controllers imo. Its far easyer to do things with a keyboard/mouse.
While your critising people expecting quake with night vision, i happen to play quake a hell of alot(you can probably tell from my sig), and i completed SC quite easyily.

You have also forgot that becuase of the enhansed and easyier top use control system on PCs(from ubisoft interview), 1/3 has been taken off Sam Fishers Health bar. So even the developer of the game thinks that the keyboard/mouse is better than a Xbox controller.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BoomAM
A HDTV here in the UK costs around £2000. With that amount of money you could buy a seriously powerful rig.

The economies of scale in relation to a few small islands isn't an indication of the majority. Of course you could build a seriously powerful rig for that much, but SC will still run like crap compared to the XBox. I'm not sure what the rest of the global climate is in regards to television, but if you read any socio-economic commentary on TV's influence on American culture, you'd understand that Television is still the head of the household.

Splinter Cell sounds no different on PC than it does on a DD5.1 set-up. If you have a decent sound system on your pc.
The Sound Positioning is the same, i personally prefer the PC setup.

Are you speaking from experience or are you just speaking? You've already said you don't own an XBox, so your experience is already limited and/or biased. I've got my XBox and PC set-up on the same DD 5.1/DTS receiver, and I can switch between them with the flick of a button. I'm running my Audigy 2 via 5.1 analog outputs to my receiver and my XBox via optical/toslink input. The Audigy 2 is as good as it gets for gaming, but its still limited by the sample quality and positional sound coded by the devs. The A2 APU ends up doing a lot of guess-timating and upmixing from a lower fidelity source (probably stereo), which results in cross-over between channels and inaccuracies you wouldn't see in dedicated positional sound coding. PC devs simply can't focus on sound quality as much as XBox devs simply b/c they have to account for all the different audio APIs out there and their sound samples are limited by a CDs storage capacity. Listen to an XBox on a proper DD 5.1 set-up and you'll hear the difference; particularly the center and LFE channels.

The reason that the performance drop is not as significant on a Xbox, or any home console, is because the developer only has the optimise for one hardware setup, where as on pc, he/she has the optimise for thousends of different configs. No doubt if a developer could heavly optimise a game for one system config only, say a athlon1ghz and a GF3, then he/she could make the GFX far better than anything that XBox can handle. Alot of you forget this.

You're preaching to the choir on this one, as I've probably typed 5 pages on the topic in this thread alone. Its also why I made my original "way its meant to be played" comment, as its clear the game was developed and optimized as an XBox title first, and then as a PC port.

SC is NOT better suited to controllers imo. Its far easyer to do things with a keyboard/mouse.
While your critising people expecting quake with night vision, i happen to play quake a hell of alot(you can probably tell from my sig), and i completed SC quite easyily.

Who ever said degree of difficulty meant it was better suited? I found the XBox controls to be natural and intuitive; I found the PC controls to be cumbersome, particularly the use of the scroll wheel to control movement speed. If you had to perform the following simple maneuver:

Fall from a ledge,
Crouch and move 30 paces at different speeds while turning to face a guard
sneak up behind him,
spring to a standing position, pull a 180 turn, and dodge quickly into the shadows again b/c he was turning towards you,
resume your approach with his back facing you,
grab him in a headlock or deliver a forearm shiver.

That basic maneuver would take hundreds of keystrokes (occupying all of your fingers) on the PC and numerous adjustments to the scrollwheel. I have to press 3 buttons and my thumb never leaves the analog stick on the XBox.

You have also forgot that becuase of the enhansed and easyier top use control system on PCs(from ubisoft interview), 1/3 has been taken off Sam Fishers Health bar. So even the developer of the game thinks that the keyboard/mouse is better than a Xbox controller.

Enhanced? They dummied down Sam's health because the use of a mouse made the game grotesquely easy. Pinpoint precision with an SC-20K w/ sniper scope against enemies that move at crawl and can't even see you is nothing to brag about. You might as well friggin put fish in a barrel and shoot them for entertainment.

Chiz

 

[BoomAM]

The economies of scale in relation to a few small islands isn't an indication of the majority. Of course you could build a seriously powerful rig for that much, but SC will still run like crap compared to the XBox. I'm not sure what the rest of the global climate is in regards to television, but if you read any socio-economic commentary on TV's influence on American culture, you'd understand that Television is still the head of the household.

Are you speaking from experience or are you just speaking? You've already said you don't own an XBox, so your experience is already limited and/or biased. I've got my XBox and PC set-up on the same DD 5.1/DTS receiver, and I can switch between them with the flick of a button. I'm running my Audigy 2 via 5.1 analog outputs to my receiver and my XBox via optical/toslink input. The Audigy 2 is as good as it gets for gaming, but its still limited by the sample quality and positional sound coded by the devs. The A2 APU ends up doing a lot of guess-timating and upmixing from a lower fidelity source (probably stereo), which results in cross-over between channels and inaccuracies you wouldn't see in dedicated positional sound coding. PC devs simply can't focus on sound quality as much as XBox devs simply b/c they have to account for all the different audio APIs out there and their sound samples are limited by a CDs storage capacity. Listen to an XBox on a proper DD 5.1 set-up and you'll hear the difference; particularly the center and LFE channels.

You're preaching to the choir on this one, as I've probably typed 5 pages on the topic in this thread alone. Its also why I made my original "way its meant to be played" comment, as its clear the game was developed and optimized as an XBox title first, and then as a PC port.

Who ever said degree of difficulty meant it was better suited? I found the XBox controls to be natural and intuitive; I found the PC controls to be cumbersome, particularly the use of the scroll wheel to control movement speed. If you had to perform the following simple maneuver:

Fall from a ledge,
Crouch and move 30 paces at different speeds while turning to face a guard
sneak up behind him,
spring to a standing position, pull a 180 turn, and dodge quickly into the shadows again b/c he was turning towards you,
resume your approach with his back facing you,
grab him in a headlock or deliver a forearm shiver.

That basic maneuver would take hundreds of keystrokes (occupying all of your fingers) on the PC and numerous adjustments to the scrollwheel. I have to press 3 buttons and my thumb never leaves the analog stick on the XBox.

Enhanced? They dummied down Sam's health because the use of a mouse made the game grotesquely easy. Pinpoint precision with an SC-20K w/ sniper scope against enemies that move at crawl and can't even see you is nothing to brag about. You might as well friggin put fish in a barrel and shoot them for entertainment.

Chiz

These few small islands happens to make up most of the european gaming market.
I`ve played on a friends Xbox. He has a 40" TV and a full 600W RMS 5.1 DD surround system, he happens to be a Xbox nut, and even he thinks its better on pc. The sound difference is small. I have a Audigy and a Inspire 5300 5.1 sound system bty. All SC caters for audio wise is DirectSound and EAX. With EAX HD on, it sounds amazing.
I found Sam very easy to control on pc. The wheel system to control speed is great, and easy to use.
Im willing to bet, that if SC was a multiplayer game, and you had two people, same skill level, one using a PC and one using a Xbox controller, The PC user would win.
The use of the SC-20K on the pc version is not pin point. The sniper scope isnt pin point either. Have you even played the PC version? Cos if you have, you`d know this.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BoomAM
These few small islands happens to make up most of the european gaming market.

Which make up less than 10% of the worldwide gaming market. The two largest gaming markets, US and Japan, will continue widespread integration of HDTVs. As it is now, most standard televisions sold accept component inputs and achieve similar results to true 480p through the use of various pulldown methods.

I`ve played on a friends Xbox. He has a 40" TV and a full 600W RMS 5.1 DD surround system, he happens to be a Xbox nut, and even he thinks its better on pc. The sound difference is small. I have a Audigy and a Inspire 5300 5.1 sound system bty. All SC caters for audio wise is DirectSound and EAX. With EAX HD on, it sounds amazing.

Your friend needs to double-check his configuration or he needs to invest in a new A/V system. The "sound difference" is as small as a DTS DVD played on a DTS decoded receiver vs. a movie with a stereo track upmixed using Dolby Pro Logic-II.

I found Sam very easy to control on pc. The wheel system to control speed is great, and easy to use.
Im willing to bet, that if SC was a multiplayer game, and you had two people, same skill level, one using a PC and one using a Xbox controller, The PC user would win.

I don't think so. I'd just run around you in circles. While you're trying to get your bearings fumbling with 8 different movement keys and your scroll wheel, while fighting the tearing and stuttering caused by the sudden PoV shifts, I'll be deciding whether I want to dispatch you with a forearm shiver, pistol whip, or the good 'ole WWF-style sleeper hold. The controller's force feedback response from the butt of my pistol hitting the nape of your neck would be particularly satisfying. The resonating thud from my subwoofer would let me know you've hit the mat.

The use of the SC-20K on the pc version is not pin point. The sniper scope isnt pin point either. Have you even played the PC version? Cos if you have, you`d know this.

Yep, I finished it in 3 days and gave it away. If you're talking about the "realism" of having to hold your breath and the small jitters added when zoomed, gimme a break. Any recent FPS is far more difficult when it comes to sniping.

Chiz

 

[BFG10K]

Running at HDTV levels doesn't change the performance. The game is rendered at its native resolution and downsampled using a flicker filter for output to low res TVs.

Interesting. So what is the standard resolution used? Or does it differ per game? And if it does, how does that resolution relate to different HDTV resolutions available?

I think you know where I'm going with this: on the PC you can usually run any 3D game at any resolution you like, customised to your liking.

480p with a 60Hz refresh is far from "low" and offers equivalent visuals (factoring in viewing distance) to a PC running 1024x768 @ 85Hz without the hit in performance you'd find on a PC.

1024 x 768 @ 60 Hz is utter crap.

My target resolution isn't as ambitious as yours, and guess what? It still runs like a pig. Oh yah, I have a faster rig than you. On the other hand, my XBox runs SC at a smooth frame rate throughout and never stutters or jerks while providing high levels of detail and lighting effects (which look better on the XBox as well).

Yeah? Then why don't you put the PC Splinter Cell at 640 x 480 (or whatever it is on a standard TV) and disable all of the advanced features such as anisotropic filtering and FSAA and then let me know how it runs.

If you're going to do a comparison, it should be apples vs apples.

Opposed to a top-of-the-line PC gaming rig and a 21'' monitor that breaks your bank?

A good 21" monitor can usually do 2048 x 1536 @ 75 Hz. How much does a HDTV cost that can do the same, including refresh rate? And if you could get one, how many games actually allow you to run them that high? Heck, I can even run GLQuake at that resolution if I like.

Once again, it's apples to apples. 480p does not match 2048 x 1536 by even the wildest stretch of the imagination.

gameplay is still smoother than on a high-end PC.

I don't believe that for a second unless you're talking about half-assed ports bought over to the PC. But that's poor programming, not console superiority. Any current console is no match for a 3 GHz/3000+ with a Radeon 9800 Pro if both systems are running fully optimised games.

High detail levels, AA, and dynamic lighting come for free on the XBox,

That screams of CPU limitation to me and that's exactly what you'd expect from a Pentium III @ 733 MHz.

but they'll cut your frame rate in 1/2 or more on the PC.

Because the faster CPU speeds make GPU limitations more likely. Also the threshold is still much higher when it does drop.

The "same" crappy controller is still much better suited to SC than a mouse and keyboard.

You buy a controller for one game? Every type of game I play (FPS, RPG, RTS) is far better on a mouse and keyboard except flight sims where I prefer to use a joystick. I find console controllers limiting and cumbersome.

You didn't bother to mention positional sound and sound sample quality, which are both far superior on the XBox in Dolby Digital 5.1.

I can't comment on this because I don't really use surround sound.

I certainly don't view "configuration time" as some geek badge of honor or a perk associated with PC gaming, I see it as a distraction that takes away from my free time. I'm sure most people look forward to buying a new game hoping they have to spend time troubleshooting and configuring their gaming system before they can play.

I have no idea how you interpreted my comment but it was clearly wrong. All I was saying is that if you used a lack of configuration as a plus for a console I could partially see your point for the people that know nothing about computers.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

1024 x 768 @ 60 Hz is utter crap.

That's a ridiculous statement, since the majority of PC users will be LUCKY to run Splinter Cell at that resolution. From the rest of your comments, I'm taking it you haven't played or seen SC on the XBox or the PC. It seems once again you're lumping consoles gaming in general with your preferred niche game-type, FPSs. Splinter Cell is the ONLY game I mentioned cross-platform where I would prefer it on the XBox. I didn't mention UT2K3/UT:C for a reason. I also didn't mention Ghost Recon (although I've heard its excellent on the XBox, I still think its an FPS), simply b/c I feel those games are meant to be playd on a PC.

60Hz or 60fps might not be ideal for an FPS (I prefer 80fps minimum myself), however, that's only because FPSs require higher frames and refresh rates b/c their fast-paced nature. There are plenty of games like NWN or Morrowind that are visually stunning that run the way they are supposed to at 40fps (that's the max on current hardware), simply b/c they don't run at breakneck speeds.

Yeah? Then why don't you put the PC Splinter Cell at 640 x 480 (or whatever it is on a standard TV) and disable all of the advanced features such as anisotropic filtering and FSAA and then let me know how it runs.

Because it looks like @ss on the PC unless I turn up the resolution, AA and AF. The PCs ability to run at high resolutions is both a blessing and a curse. Imperfections on a texture are exacerbated on a PC monitor b/c of the high definition, dot-pitch and higher resolutions. If you've got an ugly texture or jaggies, it only looks worse at lower resolutions b/c you're essentially magnifying it. The XBox gives free AA by default in almost all of its titles, and the lower resolutions of TVs blend textures even further. Of course the game doesn't look as sharp as on a PC, but viewing distance tempers the end result and tightens up the softer lines. I've found many PC ports look worse simply b/c the resulting picture sharpness and detail makes textures and objects look artificial.

A good 21" monitor can usually do 2048 x 1536 @ 75 Hz. How much does a HDTV cost that can do the same, including refresh rate? And if you could get one, how many games actually allow you to run them that high? Heck, I can even run GLQuake at that resolution if I like.

You can get a 36'' Sony Wega that does 1080i (1920x1080@100Hz) for a very conservative price of $2000 (quoted retail from Best Buy). There's only a few games that run natively at 1080i, but there are quite a few titles under development that will support 720p. Most current XBox games support 480p natively, but still benefit from a TV capable of 1080i. Throw in the cost of an XBox and you've got your gaming rig for $2200 + Tax.

How much would it cost to put together a similar gaming rig for the PC? $500-$1000 for a quality 21'' monitor with the specifications you mentioned and another $2000 or so for a high-end gaming rig. How many games support 2048 x 1536? How many GPUs would be able to run new titles at that resolution?

Once again, it's apples to apples. 480p does not match 2048 x 1536 by even the wildest stretch of the imagination.

The difference is, the PC has to actual render at that resolution. TVs will convert the signal by interpolating. There's less valid pixels, but the end result is similar.

I don't believe that for a second unless you're talking about half-assed ports bought over to the PC. But that's poor programming, not console superiority. Any current console is no match for a 3 GHz/3000+ with a Radeon 9800 Pro if both systems are running fully optimised games.

Believe it. Again, it seems you haven't played SC on either platform. I recommend you at least try the PC version (there's a demo available), as its the ONLY cross-platform game I mentioned being superior (IMO of course) on the XBox so you'll see first-hand what I'm talking about. Half-assed ports are what I've been talking about the whole time in my comments about PC games being largely unpolished and unoptimized for current hardware.

That screams of CPU limitation to me and that's exactly what you'd expect from a Pentium III @ 733 MHz.

Heh, you can't look at the XBox's hardware specs and compare it to a similar PC system; its dedicated gaming hardware that performs better than the sum of its parts would if it were a PC. It runs a streamlined OS thats sole purpose is to run games and all of its hardware, although similar to PC components, is optimized for gaming. Game console's "specs" and requirements have always lagged behind PCs for this very reason, yet manage to rival a much more "powerful" PC in terms of visuals. Game devs have target hardware, which makes it much easier to achieve similar levels of performance when compared to a PC.

Because the faster CPU speeds make GPU limitations more likely. Also the threshold is still much higher when it does drop.

The GPU is the bottleneck regardless of how fast the processor. The fastest gaming rigs on the fastest platforms (from various reviews) yield a spectacular ~30fps at 1600x1200 no AA/AF. The situation isn't much better at a "low" resolution comparable to the XBox's resolution: 1024x768 yields ~45fps. Turn on 2x AA and you cut your frame rate in 1/2. Turn on AF and you cut your frames even further. I'm not sure what you meant by "threshold is still much higher", but a high-end PC clearly doesn't perform on par with the XBox, even at 1024.

You buy a controller for one game? Every type of game I play (FPS, RPG, RTS) is far better on a mouse and keyboard except flight sims where I prefer to use a joystick. I find console controllers limiting and cumbersome.

Nope, it came with my XBox. I own a controller for my PC (FF PS2 style dual-analog) but its collecting dust since I don't look to buy games on the PC that use a controller. I prefer a mouse/keyboard/joystick for the same game types you listed, but that has nothing to do with Splinter Cell, which again, is the only cross-platformer I mentioned.

Chiz

 

[BenSkywalker]

This should be less of a problem when DX9 is mainstream because all GPUs are fully programable, from the bottom up. Which means there should be a lot less varience in the code paths.

There could end up being a lot more variance in the code path then what we have now when DX9 becomes commonplace. First, DX9 is still a long way off from fully programmable. Then you have the different levels of precission supported by the different vendors. The biggest factor is optimal scheduling from the HLSL compiler that is being used for a particular architecture. The DX9 level boards still do things quite differently from each other internally, in many aspects PS/VS 2.0 make this a lot more pronounced then it has been previously(on the code level it does at least).

 

[Smilin]

I just wanted to chip in and mention that there is no way ANY console compares to my gaming rig. Period.