ummmm... funny thing is, i wasnt being sarcastic.... Neither was I being sarcastic. No hard feelings.

"You do realize that LCD TVs do not radiate like CRTs?" i recall reading somewhere that you need to sit like 2 arms length away from your monitor. and i remember from a movie, where this one guy created a program which can create an actress and gave it to this wash up director to make an actress and direct a movie, now that guy spent too much time on the computer and he got eye cancer, which is why he got the gutts to finally give away the program he developed to the director. so i assume its still pretty harmful. how harmful?.. i have no idea. "Yes, at a price, but such is the elitist nature of hardcore PC gaming. Some do have the budget though, otherwise companies like Alienware and Voodoo would have been long out of business, but instead have been bought by Dell and HP, respectively. They can't be doing that bad if those two corporations are willing to buy up boutique vendors." yeah, i guess... but were just assuming, we could say the same about people who dont know any better about consoles. imagine 2 people talking about the xbox, they would assume that it made a profit since Xbox 360 was made. they would also assume that xbox360 is making a profit since its still on the market.. "Your Bioshock example? I honestly didn't understand it!" bioshock minimum requirements right now is 2.4 ghz and 2gb ram(not sure but real requirements not really needed anyway) now if developers became pretty used on the PC development, would they be able to make a game which is technically superior to Bioshock but with far lesser minimum requirements?. 2 cores 500 mhz each with only 750mb ram? hypothetical question. "Neither was I being sarcastic. No hard feelings.' non at all ^^ "Thanks for the link." your welcome.

i recall reading somewhere that you need to sit like 2 arms length away form your monitor. and i remember from a movie, where this one guy created a program which can create an actress and gave it to this wash up director to make an actress and direct a movie, now that guy spent too much time on the computer and he got eye cancer, which is why he got the gutts to finally give away the program he developed to the director. so i assume its still pretty harmful. how harmful?.. i have no idea. LCDs do not emit radiation like CRTs. You don't need radiation shields, or sit at a certain minimum distance. Besides, Hollywood is not a very reliable source to gather your information from! You can sit next to an LCD all day and if your eyes feel the strain, it's from the images, not from the radiation. yeah, i guess... but were just assuming, we could say the same about people who dont know any better about consoles. imagine 2 people talking about the xbox, they would assume that it made a profit since Xbox 360 was made. they would also assume that xbox360 is making a profit since its still on the market.. I guess if we assume we can assume everything then! I don't understand exactly your comment though... bioshock minimum requirements right now is 2.4 ghz and 2gb ram(not sure but real requirements not really needed anyway) now if developers became pretty used on the PC development, would they be able to make a game which is technically superior to Bioshock but with far lesser minimum requirements?. 2 cores 500 mhz each with only 750mb ram? hypothetical question. What you are talking about is optimizations. Yes, developers do it all the time. It can swing both ways though: Developers can make a game run leaner or meaner. Normally they aim for the meaner bit (more of everything) instead of leaner (keep everything the way it is but optimize it for lower-spec'd computers). How a developer decides to implement is their own decision. PC gaming is just moving towards 64-bit operating systems and multicore CPUs so there is also a learning curve for developers. 64-bit vs 32-bit and multi-core vs single-core are different. Same reason why developers have a hard time with the CELL.

To y'all bringing up keyboard and mice...

If you're serious enough about FPS gaming to go K&M, why wouldn't you play the PC version instead? OK, PCs can be more expensive than consoles, but if that's your big reason, it means you're not that serious about it after all...

More importantly, perhaps, is how exactly would you go about using the K&M for fast paced action on a console? I'm picturing a PS360 in the living room and you in front of your 40" TV... and K&M just isn't a match for this environment.

I mean... Will you borrow your old PC K&M with their 3ft cords? Or will you buy Bluetooth ones (and are those even fast enough for gaming)? Will you just sit on the couch with the keyboard on your lap and the mouse on a pad by your side? Or will you lie uncomfortably on the floor looking up at your TV? I dunno... Maybe sit on the floor and give some use to that 1ft tall coffee table? I'm sorry, but none of these options sound anywhere close to ideal (or even comfortable at all) for someone serious enough about FPS gaming to deliberately use K&M on a console.

I can see (wireless) keyboards and mice being useful for web browsing and chatting, or even for some slow paced strategy games and stuff like that. You can still sit comfortably and just use them on your lap, like you'd use a laptop or something. But that's not what I'd use for competitive "I will not get pwned just 'cause I'm on a console" FPS play.

"LCDs do not emit radiation like CRTs. You don't need radiation shields, or sit at a certain minimum distance. Besides, Hollywood is not a very reliable source to gather your information from! You can sit next to an LCD all day and if your eyes feel the strain, it's from the images, not from the radiation." ahhh thanks, thats good to hear, guess ill also have to pick up an LCD hd tv when i finally jump to HD. ill have to look this up some more though. about the hollywood bit, i kknow they atleast need to base events like that on something believable. for example they cant make a certain character die from cancer because he drank too much water cause that would be completely false. so if LCD's cant cause cancer why would they add that to the movie? "Some do have the budget though, otherwise companies like Alienware and Voodoo would have been long out of business, but instead have been bought by Dell and HP, respectively. They can't be doing that bad if those two corporations are willing to buy up boutique vendors." well from what i can understand from this comment, i figured, you were assuming that because alienware and Vodoo were still in business and willing to buy up boutique vendors, that they were doing good even though you didnt find any real proof on their sales. and that is why i brought up the xbox assumption paragraph. "What you are talking about is optimizations. Yes, developers do it all the time. It can swing both ways though: Developers can make a game run leaner or meaner. Normally they aim for the meaner bit (more of everything) instead of leaner (keep everything the way it is but optimize it for lower-spec'd computers). How a developer decides to implement is their own decision. PC gaming is just moving towards 64-bit operating systems and multicore CPUs so there is also a learning curve for developers. 64-bit vs 32-bit and multi-core vs single-core are different. Same reason why developers have a hard time with the CELL." alright, thanks, i think i have a better grasp on this now. well this is late enough for me, goodnight.

ahhh thanks, thats good to hear, guess ill also have to pick up an LCD hd tv when i finally jump to HD. ill have to look this up some more though. about the hollywood bit, i kknow they atleast need to base events like that on something believable. for example they cant make a certain character die from cancer because he drank too much water cause that would be completely false. so if LCD's cant cause cancer why would they add that to the movie? That's EXACTLY the problem with Hollywood! You just naturally assumed that because a movie shows someone being affected by LCDs to have some grain of truth! You know that you can't die of cancer from drinking too much water (although you can die from drinking too much water; it's just that cancer isn't the cause - remember that radio show where a woman died from drinking too much water for trying to win a Wii for her sons?) so you naturally wouldn't believe it even if you saw this in a movie, but if you don't know that LCDs do not emit radiation, and see that a movie shows someone dying from LCD radiation, you now think that you can die from too many LCDs! I strongly recommend you watch this show called "Hollywood Science" - half the stuff you see in Hollywood is straight out of fiction (they break all known laws of physics) and those that have some basis on physics still take liberties. It's a great show - and guaranteed to have you saying "WTF?" every 10 seconds or so!

@iclim
Yeah , hollywood movies are full of BS, usually based in fiction. Some movie do a good job with facts but most are very bad at matching up with reality. The movie you are referring to I believe is "Simone" and no you cannot get eye cancer from an LCD monitor any more than you can get eye cancer from owning a boat.

Also the "We are only using 30% of the cell." thing is also VERY misleading and intentionally so. The problem is that in a computer there are bottlenecks. Basically part of the computer is operating as fast as it can go and other parts are only running at say 80% of their full potential. These sorts of claims are very silly without more information to base them on.

For instance if the processor of a computer is running at 100% and the memory is only being 10% effectively utilized then how much of the computers power is being used? The answer may not be obvious to some, but suffice it to say a computer is only as fast as its slowest parts.

This example works the other way also, if the processor is 10% in use but the memory is 100% in use then the processor is waiting on the memory and so no matter how much extra oomph it could dish out...it still can't because there is nothing more for it to do.

% claims have been around the computer industry for a long time and they are just as irrelevant now as they always were.

euclid said: the ps3 can play games at 60 fps? Is this for real?

no, it's not real..... IT'S UNREAL!!!! BOOYAH!!!

 

BenKenobi88 said: PS3 graphics near PC graphics is nothing new...PS3 was supposed to be better than PC... This game would be very weird on a console though...

 

Not exactly , console-exclusive games schould . High-end 10k $ PCs allmost allways run games batter than consoles :)

Heres a new video showing how promising this title is. It's running at it's Alpha stage, and showing one off it's impressive mods.

http://www.ageia.com/physx/ut3.html