BenSkywalker
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 9,140
- 67
- 91
Whoa now, you can't on one hand say this, then turn around and say "The typical XBox or GameCube title looks better then the typical PC title by a decent margin." It's one or the other. The typical console has extremely limited resolution because the typical display it's hooked into is 512x512 NTSC.
NTSC isn't 512x512 for starters, and my comments on the typical game were based on software, not hardware. Consoles are not limited to uber low resolutions, that's simply all most people see out of them. Games not exploiting the hardware on PCs is, always has been and will continue to be one of console's strong points. Would anyone really want a PC game market where they had to upgrade every six months or the latest games would not run? That is the only way to close that gap.
No split-screens, and PC games are by far superior in almost every aspect of multiplayer gaming, from number of players to different gaming modes. Not only that, but the PC has much wider multiplayer support for the various types of games. On the PC, almost every game type is multiplayable: MMORPGs (what I was actually classifying as adventure games), RTS, FPS, and so on.
No split screens....? OK, you can't use PCs anymore to defend PCs First off, you seen many two player fighting games using split screen? How about sports titles? Racing games in split screen there is nothing wrong with at all. MMORPGS are on the consoles also, have been for years. The fact is that they only sell in the low 100K range, which is a big hit in the PC space, a little niche title on the consoles. FPSs are playable using multiplayer on consoles even if we exclude split screen. RealTimeStrategy games just suck on consoles, which I have said numerous times. Are you familiar with the console market btw?
I disagree. If you compare any console game's graphics to the Unreal II Engine, the upcoming Doom engine, etc., they look like cheap garbage.
Do you realize that the UnrealII engine already has console games built on it already? Also, Carmack has mentioned DooM3 headed to the XBox. Take a look at the big hits in the PC market- The Sims(SNES caliber visuals), WarcraftIII(which even the PS2 could handle), MOH(on all the consoles already and piss poor visuals owing to its PC roots). Check out the ports going the other way- SplinterCell crushes the highest end PCs, runs quite nicely on the XBox.
The Unreal engine ran on everything from a 4MB PCI Video card on up to the latest and greatest, and continually got better looking. It also spawned a whole load of new game types, and had some of the best mods out.
The Unreal engines, one and two, run on consoles too, and you can download additional content.
I have both Quake III Arena, and possibly the prettiest QIII-engine driven game: Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force.
JKII had much better visuals then STV:EF. Ignoring that though, the Quake3 engine has been running on consoles for years. Carmack has stated that porting DooM3 could result in a ~100% performance improvement over a comparable specd PC because porting to dedicated hardware allows so much tighter code(to paraphrase).
How many console game engines can say they have had the same longevity, or ran well on as much hardware? Would you like to know how many FPS my current 'substandard' and 'average gaming' rig can pull at 800x600?
Try SplinterCell, all details maxed. Take a look at these benches. There's a Radeon 9500Pro paired with an Athlon XP2700 failing to hit 30FPS running 1024x768 without AA or AF. That is far removed from low end or mid tier. Also, that is an Unreal2 engined game(and runs nicely on the XBox using the same settings).
Actually, I have yet to see anyone release a mod for any existing console game. Do you have any links to where these supposed things exist? I'm presuming you don't since you're countering my statement with "It's possible to do it" and not, "These four games do it already."
You have not seen any downloadable additional content for console games...? Take a look at the link, not just the URL. There is already downloadable new content available for consoles. I'm a bit confused, do you follow the console industry at all? This particular topic has been covered extensively by pretty much every console or multi platform gaming site on the net.
Steel Batallion vs Mech 4: Vengeance = No contest, Mech 4 wins hands down on every front -- from graphics to sound to multiplayability.
Have you ever seen Steel Batallion? It is considerably less popularized then downloadable content.
And as for adventure games, when you factor in the various MMORPGs, the consoles lose out. You cannot draw any comparison between something like say, Ultima Online, or Everquest, and Zelda on the Gamecube. The Adventure games lose out all the time IMHO.
So you call MMORPGs adventure games, alright. Then we can compare console MMORPGs- PSO ep I&II, FinalFantasyXI and Everquest(EQ is a Sony product- didn't really surprise anyone that they made a PS2 port and yes, it has been out). When I said adventure games I meant actual adventure games, not MMORPGs(or RPGs at all for that matter, they are a very different genre).
First of all, I said "Better for pick-up gaming", and second of all, you obviously don't have your network configured well for lan parties.
I have this issue with security on my rig, I like having some for instance
Lol, the Xbox does not have GF4 level graphics. It has GF3.15 level graphics.
If you really want to get in to this subject we can Are you familiar with the architectural differences between the NV20 and NV25 and how they relate to the NV2A? I'm not speculating.
I compared an Xbox on an HDTV to a PC with a GeForce 3 Ti200, and they looked the same. There is no improvement in image quality on the console, but my Radeon 64MB VIVO looked better than both in terms of image quality.
If the XBox was hooked up to a HDTV and looked worse then a Radeon 64MB VIVO something was set up wrong with the XBox. Ignoring that completely, there is no difference in the output of the GeForce3 and GeForce4, they are the same core with certain architectural enhancements that mainly relate to vertex processing throughput and memory controller optimizations.
simply because they can go out and spend the $500 to make their system go from good to best without having to replace the whole thing
And for $550 right now I can buy all the consoles and get three games in the deal.
Tsk tsk, you go from typical to rare to typical. The fact is most console owners don't have a TV, and it is a pro that they don't have to buy a monitor.
I was stating that buying a monitor shouldn't be viewed as a negative for PCs as consoles need a proper display to enjoy also. I have stated several things that PCs do better on the gaming front, the monitor issue is a wash IMO as people need to upgrade their TVs to get the most out of the systems.
One thing I didn't mention was inputs. The PC can accept a wide variety of inputs (they make any console gaming hardware, plus gaming hardware specifically for the PC, plus keyboards, mice, etc.. On the console, you're rather limited to whatever gaming hardware the console's games support.
Could you tell me what the consoles are lacking on that end? And before you ask, yes, you can get a mouse/kb setup for consoles