By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - What does the x-box 360 have to offer?

ArtznCraphs on 13 July 2008

As much as I love PC gaming, if consoles ever got something like The Witcher or Diablo 3 or Dungeon Siege to work, I wouldn't upgrade my PC for years.

The hard, isometric, complex RPG is all but dead, and the best ones can be played on an average rig. NWN2 is cool and all, but we will not be seeing anything as hardcore as Temple of Elemental Evil again, at least not something that requires a monster rig, which would limit an already niche game even further.

And even though Fallout 3 may wind up no more than Oblivion with guns, it's better than the alternative, which is no FO at all.

FPS, well we see what's happened there.

RTS? I played Dune on Sega Genesis. Company of Heroes caliber is only a matter of time.

So I'ma keep on PC gaming, but not at the expense of my pocket book just to keep up.



Around the Network
shio on 13 July 2008

mrstickball said:

And how many of these aforementioned games are MMOs? I am sure that if you like MMORPGs, the PC is the platform of choice. Unfortunately, last I checked, Tabula Rasa, LOTR: SoA, DR and Pirates are all MMOs, and not traditional RPGs. So then you have just the Witcher, NWN, Titan Quest, and Spellforce for traditional signle-player RPGs.

So an RPG needs to be traditional in order to be considered an RPG? Oh god please forgive developers for wanting to branch out a genre through innovative projects!!! I guess we should criticise the SRPGs, ARPGs and CORPGs next because they're not traditionals....

MMORPGS have existed for almost 15 years, and multiplayer rpgs have existed since the 80's. MMORPG deserves to called a sub-genre of RPG.

And as I said before, PC had 35 games over 70%, while X360 only had 9. Even if we go by your (wrong) assumption to remove MMORPGs and even expansions, it would still leave atleast the double of X360's titles.

Ah. So we're talking about a $1,500+ USD (via old conversion rates when it was purchased) not being able to handle anything remotely new or graphical versus a $200 Xbox that can't play X360 games. Brilliant.

You should rethink how Dollar/Euro exchange rates affect the prices of products.... as in none. A 500$ purchase is equal to 500€. You should've known that already.......

I won't argue that. But again, a $1000 PC would play them OK, and it's still $600 more than a X360.

600$ that you will easily retrieve from buying the cheaper PC games.


My point was/is that you can list a few piecemeal exclusives like the Sims or Spore, but console-side exclusives are far more prolific at this point in time. Remember when every good RTS, FPS, or Western RPG was exclusive to the PC? That was years ago. Now we see every RTS being on the X360, most major WRPGs, and every FPS being on the X360 or PS3. The PC has utterly failed at keeping it's market. Left 4 Dead, a game that would easily of been a PC exclusive 4 years ago is going to launch day-and-date on my 360. All the while we've seen a "few" console games go PC-side, and usually with little fanfare, or care.

Name me 1 Console game that is as big as The Sims 3? Just 1... there's none. You may say that console games are more profitable, but the truth is most of the times is just because you gang up ALL Console versions (which is something I never understod, since PC itself is just 1 platform).

Another truth is that PC is the one getting all the great exclusives from EA: Dragon Age, SPORE, The Sims 3, Warhammer Online, Battleforge, etc.... so what about X360? how many exclusives is it getting? How about the PS3? How good are EA's Wii exclusives coming out?

Another important thing you missed is that.... how many good exclusives are there in each console compared to last generation? I can tell you: barely any!

Wii : Lots of exclusives and the traditional Nintendo games, but 80% of third party support is just complete crap. Very, very few good games are on Wii, and most third party developers are still using the Wii as a cash-cow and not giving a decent backup to the console.

X360: Good exclusives from MS, but there is a chance that most of their great exclusives end up on PC. In terms of third party support... it's lacking, very lacking since almost all of it goes to another platform (PS3 and/or PC).

PS3: Almost no exclusives, and pretty much all third party support goes to other platforms too.

Last generation, each console had alot of exclusives. Hell, even Dreamcast had a better number of good exclusives than PS3 and Wii. What this shows is that console exclusive third party support is dieing and developers are forced to make their games multiplatform.

It's happening the same on PC... however, due to the cost and easiness of development, smaller (but talented) developers can live well on PC exclusiveness and with a lower risk. Add that to the fact that there are types of games that can only be done well on PC, the rise of indie development, and the juggernaut revenue of online gaming, and we have a buttload of PC exclusive games.


Then you weren't in the PC circles I was in. Thats what some felt was the case - that games were making slow progress (primarily still 2d), and that "modern" $2,500 PCs would handle gaming for quite some time. My brother just got a freebie USB Flash Card that holds more memory than that said $2,500 PC I got in 95. Times change, and graphics will always get better. Did you ever think that 5 years ago, we'd be seeing quad-core PCs generally available to the public, and 1TB HDDs all the time? I didn't. Yet it's the same logic that drives the graphical argument.

Slow progress? Please, it was between middle 90's and 200 that 3D gaming boomed, and most computers weren't ready to support that change decently.

Besides, you completely missed the point. Soon, there will be a time when low end PCs will be able to run games at a very decent quality... that's just what anyone should expect. Hell, maybe the time has already come, because games like Crysis on lowest settings looks better than ANY console game from last generation. Same thing will happen in the next generation, when PC games on low settings will probably look better than any PS3/360 game.



I will gladly agree that technology is much cheaper. I paid $2,500 in 1995 for a top-of-the-line PC of the day with monitor and a free printer. I could get a comparible computer (in terms of relative preformance) for about $1,500 w/ monitor. Nevertheless, I still believe that a middle-range computer is going to not be able to play games for as long as you'd believe. And video game systems are just as argued - again, the PS2 is still getting a ton of games, and with Persona 4 selling over 150,000 units first week, I don't think you could argue that an 8 year old PC at any sort of decent price would of had the same longevity that any given PS2 has had.

The PS2 is getting nowhere near what a 5yo PC gets today (playable games). Simple as that. And my brother's PC is still waiting for SPORE, The Sims 3, Battlefield Heroes, Starcraft 2 (which by then the PC will be 6yo), etc.

 

mrstickball said:

I think that's it for now. Again, PC gaming is OK if you really want to invest the time and patience into spending THAT much cash on a gaming medium. Feel free to do it if you like.

 But as a hardcore PC gamer since buying my first PC in 95, PC gaming has changed, A LOT. And all for the worse. 13 years ago, PC games were 90% exclusive to their medium, and surpassed console gaming in nearly every medium aside from platforming, and JRPGs. You couldn't buy an RTS, FPS, Western RPG, play online, have decent save files, have decent 2d/3d graphics, and a pleothora of other advantages that the PC market enjoyed.

6 years ago, PC also didn't get much Action/adventure games, and no music games or party games, or other console-oriented genres. But today we get alot more action/adventures, music games and party games... all thanks to console developers. I think you should know why this is happening on both sides, since it's easy to figure out.

Consoles get online, PCs get cheaper and more intuitive. Win-win for all.

 

The console world never saw the likes of quality WRPGs like the Betrayl series, or Fallout, or Elder Scrolls. Only a few elite FPS games such as Doom or Quake saw renditions on the SNES, N64 or PSX, while the majority of the genre (Wolf 3d, Rise of the Triad, ect) never saw any love on such systems. But 2008 is totally different. As a Xbox 360 owner, I get all the Western RPGs I could care about in Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, and so on. I get great FPS games like Halo, and Call of Duty.

I'd argue that consoles still haven't gotten an WRPG of the quality of Fallout 2 or Morrowind (on PC). It is simply impossible to make a deep RPG on consoles without making it frustrating for the gamer (which is what happened to Morrowind on Xbox). That's why Oblivion got alot of hate from Morrowind and WRPG fans... Oblivion was a dumbed-down experience that is nowhere near a great RPG.

PC also gets great FPS, but the best part is that I won't play with a gamepad (Kb+M ftw).

 

I actually get Real Time Strategy games such as Command & Conquer, and will be getting World in Conflict and Red Alert. However, in addition to the old hardline PC-exclusive genres that the 360 (and to a much lesser extent, PS3) has, I'm actually getting platformers, JRPGs, and other typical console-exclusive genres. So I'm getting the cream of the PC world for under half the price. Argue as you like, but it's rather useless. Unless you like upgrading your computer a lot, or play tons of MMOs, the PC isn't as viable as it used to be.

I already explained this point, and how more and more console games are going to PC. The funny part is that PC is getting more exclusives than Wii/PS3/360 combined due to the sheer force of indie and small developers, the uniqueness of the keyboard+mouse and the revenue of online gaming.

Infact, PC is getting more exclusives than ever, and the best part is that they're are spread out and using a varied number of revenue schemes.

 

Technology is getting cheaper, and the entry point on gaming PCs is indeed better, but technology in consoles is far more capible, and viable for long-term market strategies for companies.And look at what the top games are for each medium:PC:World of WarcraftXbox 360:Halo 3The difference? WoW is a 5 year old game with atrocious graphics that get installed on 5 CDs.

World of Warcraft is a far better game than Halo 3 ever was. WoW has atrocious graphics? They're not powerful, but just like any other Blizzard game, the art style is incredibly appealing, and it's getting a visual upgrade this year too (an always improving game). Oh and you don't need a disc in the drive to play WoW, unlike Halo 3....

 

Halo 3 is a top-notch FPS with high-end graphics. One can easily see that with the implosion we've seen on PC game sales where things are ending up: visually stunning games like MGS4, Halo, Gears, and the like are multi-million sellers. On PC, you either have to be an MMO or something like the Princess Bride game to do well in the market. I know this because I work for a PC gaming company. Guess which way we're going? Catering to lower-specced PCs, because that's the only market that's viable anymore. Being able to run a FPS like our recent Tribes sequel, Fallen Empire: Legions on an achient laptop computer makes you far more money than a Crysis that can be run on 15% of PCs. Thats why you see games like Trackmainia, Galactic Civs, Eschalon, WOW and other, lower-specced games getting pushed at lower price points: it's all that the typical PC gamer can afford to buy, and run on their PCs.

Halo 3 has high end graphics? A 400$ PC makes better visuals than that.

And spoken like a true ignorant of the PC's strength... what implosion? Have you still not understood that the PC market is changing, but growing alot? Have you still not understod that the Computers are getting so advanced that they can run games on web browsers with a good visual quality? The revenue schemes are also changing to be in harmony with what the market is going through.

About Crysis, for a game that some people said could only run on 5% on PCs and wouldn't even sell 500k, and still blew EA's expectations and sold 1.5 millions Without almost any distribution in digital services...

Trackmania is one of the the best racers I've played. Galactic Civ is near Civilization quality. WoW is the best MMORPG ever.... I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than the Graphixxxx..... You see, I'm not a graphic whore, I just want the best gameplay possible, and that is why I barely play any console, since it does not offer the deeper experience the PC has.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
mrstickball on 13 July 2008
Deneidez said:I am pretty sure that PS2 can't handle nothing but maybe graphics of that game. Also laptops really aren't for games. Well, if it goes for that PS360 can't run game that looks 80s game. Its called Dwarf Fortress and looks like this.

(And thats a fact. Because of some architectural stuff PS360 will run such a game lower than playable FPS. No game isn't turn based. Just saying. Graphics isn't everything you know. :) )

P.S. Dwarf Fortress is good... wait... GREAT game ;) (Uhm, incredible is even better. I am just not as good as MikeB with this. :/)

Mind giving a few links concerning anyone (at all) attempting to port DF to consoles? I've ever once heard Tarn Adams or anyone else state that they've tried to port DF to consoles, or that consoles cannot play DF if it was ported.

When I got my new laptop, it could render the starting world of DF in around 3 minutes, if I remember right.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Deneidez on 13 July 2008
mrstickball said:
Deneidez said:I am pretty sure that PS2 can't handle nothing but maybe graphics of that game. Also laptops really aren't for games. Well, if it goes for that PS360 can't run game that looks 80s game. Its called Dwarf Fortress and looks like this.

(And thats a fact. Because of some architectural stuff PS360 will run such a game lower than playable FPS. No game isn't turn based. Just saying. Graphics isn't everything you know. :) )

P.S. Dwarf Fortress is good... wait... GREAT game ;) (Uhm, incredible is even better. I am just not as good as MikeB with this. :/)

Mind giving a few links concerning anyone (at all) attempting to port DF to consoles? I've ever once heard Tarn Adams or anyone else state that they've tried to port DF to consoles, or that consoles cannot play DF if it was ported.

When I got my new laptop, it could render the starting world of DF in around 3 minutes, if I remember right.

Render? You mean generate? Anyway so youre familiar with the game? Then you know what can be done in that masterpiece. If you know anything at all about programming, you would know that OoOE is essential for that game. And no Toady isn't going to port that game for PS360. :)

(Way too many choices/paths = PS360 runs slower than 1.4GHz Thunderbird. Thats why all (real time) games on PS360 must be simple when it comes game logic. As a bonus actually PS3 would run out of memory in some point. :D)



New crap available on mi pages!

Barozi on 13 July 2008
shio said:

mrstickball said:

And how many of these aforementioned games are MMOs? I am sure that if you like MMORPGs, the PC is the platform of choice. Unfortunately, last I checked, Tabula Rasa, LOTR: SoA, DR and Pirates are all MMOs, and not traditional RPGs. So then you have just the Witcher, NWN, Titan Quest, and Spellforce for traditional signle-player RPGs.

So an RPG needs to be traditional in order to be considered an RPG? Oh god please forgive developers for wanting to branch out a genre through innovative projects!!! I guess we should criticise the SRPGs, ARPGs and CORPGs next because they're not traditionals....

MMORPGS have existed for almost 15 years, and multiplayer rpgs have existed since the 80's. MMORPG deserves to called a sub-genre of RPG.

And as I said before, PC had 35 games over 70%, while X360 only had 9. Even if we go by your (wrong) assumption to remove MMORPGs and even expansions, it would still leave atleast the double of X360's titles.

Well I counted 14 Xbox 360 RPGs over 70%. But it has just started with RPG domination so let's wait.


I won't argue that. But again, a $1000 PC would play them OK, and it's still $600 more than a X360.

600$ that you will easily retrieve from buying the cheaper PC games.

how many games will you buy. 60 ?!?!?!? That's very much for a normal gamer. Also nobody would think about that before xDDD


My point was/is that you can list a few piecemeal exclusives like the Sims or Spore, but console-side exclusives are far more prolific at this point in time. Remember when every good RTS, FPS, or Western RPG was exclusive to the PC? That was years ago. Now we see every RTS being on the X360, most major WRPGs, and every FPS being on the X360 or PS3. The PC has utterly failed at keeping it's market. Left 4 Dead, a game that would easily of been a PC exclusive 4 years ago is going to launch day-and-date on my 360. All the while we've seen a "few" console games go PC-side, and usually with little fanfare, or care.

Name me 1 Console game that is as big as The Sims 3? Almost every game. Hell it's just Sims. Nobody but kids and girls care about that. (no offense to older male gamers, who like the Sims series) Just 1... there's none. You may say that console games are more profitable, but the truth is most of the times is just because you gang up ALL Console versions (which is something I never understod, since PC itself is just 1 platform). HAHAHA !!! You've got to be kidding me.

Another important thing you missed is that.... how many good exclusives are there in each console compared to last generation? I can tell you: barely any!

Wow you compare the beginning of this with the whole last generation xDDDD

Wii : Lots of exclusives and the traditional Nintendo games, but 80% of third party support is just complete crap. Very, very few good games are on Wii, and most third party developers are still using the Wii as a cash-cow and not giving a decent backup to the console. Still the best selling console and the big Nintendo games are as good as always

X360: Good exclusives from MS, but there is a chance that most of their great exclusives end up on PC. In terms of third party support... it's lacking, very lacking since almost all of it goes to another platform (PS3 and/or PC). Well that's true. Lucky guy, that Microsoft has so much love for PC gamers ;)

PS3: Almost no exclusives, and pretty much all third party support goes to other platforms too.

Oh I think they have many exclusives

 

mrstickball said:

PC also gets great FPS, but the best part is that I won't play with a gamepad (Kb+M ftw).

Haha ! Tell that my brother. He is a hardcore PC gamer and then he bought a 360, played every good shooter and now he has upgraded his computer and he is still playing the games on his 360. but when he plays Bioshock, CoD4 and Gears of War, he first plugs the 360 controller into his PC :P

I also prefer playing FPS with controller. I'm not that accuracy, but it's more fun IMO.

Technology is getting cheaper, and the entry point on gaming PCs is indeed better, but technology in consoles is far more capible, and viable for long-term market strategies for companies.And look at what the top games are for each medium:PC:World of WarcraftXbox 360:Halo 3The difference? WoW is a 5 year old game with atrocious graphics that get installed on 5 CDs.

World of Warcraft is a far better game than Halo 3 ever was. WoW has atrocious graphics? They're not powerful, but just like any other Blizzard game, the art style is incredibly appealing, and it's getting a visual upgrade this year too (an always improving game). Oh and you don't need a disc in the drive to play WoW, unlike Halo 3....

Ooooh that's your personal opinion. Mine is, that WoW is a horrible game and the "art style" is damn ugly. Graphic update ? Wow maybe we could compare it one day with GTA 3...

Another personal opinion. For me it's: Disc into drive >>>>>>>>>> installing or even downloading

Halo 3 is a top-notch FPS with high-end graphics. One can easily see that with the implosion we've seen on PC game sales where things are ending up: visually stunning games like MGS4, Halo, Gears, and the like are multi-million sellers. On PC, you either have to be an MMO or something like the Princess Bride game to do well in the market. I know this because I work for a PC gaming company. Guess which way we're going? Catering to lower-specced PCs, because that's the only market that's viable anymore. Being able to run a FPS like our recent Tribes sequel, Fallen Empire: Legions on an achient laptop computer makes you far more money than a Crysis that can be run on 15% of PCs. Thats why you see games like Trackmainia, Galactic Civs, Eschalon, WOW and other, lower-specced games getting pushed at lower price points: it's all that the typical PC gamer can afford to buy, and run on their PCs.

Halo 3 has high end graphics? A 400$ PC makes better visuals than that.

That's the proof for me, that you've never played Halo 3 and you know nothing about it. The Lights effects are for me the best I've seen in my life and I've played Crysis with the highest settings with DirectX 10, so I know what I'm talking about. FACT: Halo 3 has great graphics.

About Crysis, for a game that some people said could only run on 5% on PCs and wouldn't even sell 500k, and still blew EA's expectations and sold 1.5 millions Without almost any distribution in digital services...

I also know some people, who said the opposite. In reality it's more like: Only 5% on the highest settings. Anything below 1 million would have been a huge dissapointment for EA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Around the Network
mrstickball on 13 July 2008
Deneidez said:

Render? You mean generate? Anyway so youre familiar with the game? Then you know what can be done in that masterpiece. If you know anything at all about programming, you would know that OoOE is essential for that game. And no Toady isn't going to port that game for PS360. :)

(Way too many choices/paths = PS360 runs slower than 1.4GHz Thunderbird. Thats why all (real time) games on PS360 must be simple when it comes game logic. As a bonus actually PS3 would run out of memory in some point. :D)

Last I checked, the X360 had pretty good OOoE due to the fact it has good branch prediction, and VMX units. No? Both the X360 and PS3 are built around Power4 microsystem archatecture, which handle OOoE fairly well.

Here's a paper on Power4 which both the Cell and Xenon are built around:

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/p/hardware/whitepapers/power4.pdf

Sufficive to say, I tend to think that the way that Power4 handles OOoE might be enough to handle your Dwarf Fortress :)

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball on 13 July 2008
shio said:

So an RPG needs to be traditional in order to be considered an RPG? Oh god please forgive developers for wanting to branch out a genre through innovative projects!!! I guess we should criticise the SRPGs, ARPGs and CORPGs next because they're not traditionals....

MMORPGS have existed for almost 15 years, and multiplayer rpgs have existed since the 80's. MMORPG deserves to called a sub-genre of RPG.

And as I said before, PC had 35 games over 70%, while X360 only had 9. Even if we go by your (wrong) assumption to remove MMORPGs and even expansions, it would still leave atleast the double of X360's titles.

I wasn't saying that MMOs aren't RPGs. I was just stating that if you want to throw a lot of various MMOs into the mix, I guess that's fine.

You should rethink how Dollar/Euro exchange rates affect the prices of products.... as in none. A 500$ purchase is equal to 500€. You should've known that already.......

Uh. No. If I took $1,000 USD over to Europe at this second, and attempted to buy something that was $1,000 Euro, I wouldn't have enough cash to buy it. Simple as that. A $500 purchase here may, or may not buy you the same thing in Europe (do you have 1 Euro stores everywhere?). 1 Euro = 1.59 USD at the moment. That's quite a comparison, no? Since we have the weakening dollar in the US, our gas prices have rocketed far higher than yours due to exchange rate. So it does effect things.

600$ that you will easily retrieve from buying the cheaper PC games.

Again, at $10 on average less, you'd see savings if you bought more than 60 games for that PC of yours. What are the chances of it?

Name me 1 Console game that is as big as The Sims 3? Just 1... there's none. You may say that console games are more profitable, but the truth is most of the times is just because you gang up ALL Console versions (which is something I never understod, since PC itself is just 1 platform).

I'll admit it. The Sims 2 has sold pretty well at 13 million units. But if you wanted to name singular console games that have sold more, I could say Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. If you wanted to include other console games, Brain Training, New Super Mario Brothers, Pokemon D/P, Nintendogs, GTA VC, and GTA III all out-sold the Sims 2. So there are bigger franchises out there.

Another important thing you missed is that.... how many good exclusives are there in each console compared to last generation? I can tell you: barely any!

Kind of like the PC, no? What is the PC getting thats so good? Spore? Sims? Whoop-de-friggin-do. I think the only 3 decent PC games that are going to stay PC exclusive and be worth any sort of care by a traditional gamer would be Diablo 3, Dragon Age and Starcraft 2. Outside of that, your looking at trashy exclusives.

Wii : Lots of exclusives and the traditional Nintendo games, but 80% of third party support is just complete crap. Very, very few good games are on Wii, and most third party developers are still using the Wii as a cash-cow and not giving a decent backup to the console.

Yes, the Wii gets some trashy exclusives. But so does the PC. Remember that lovely Princess Bride game that just came out? The PC can keep it, sir. How about Big Rig racing?

X360: Good exclusives from MS, but there is a chance that most of their great exclusives end up on PC. In terms of third party support... it's lacking, very lacking since almost all of it goes to another platform (PS3 and/or PC).

The X360 still gets those PC games either day-and-date or time exclusive versus the PC. I beat Mass Effect a few times over before you played it on PC.

PS3: Almost no exclusives, and pretty much all third party support goes to other platforms too.

Sounds reminicent of what is happening to the PC.

It's happening the same on PC... however, due to the cost and easiness of development, smaller (but talented) developers can live well on PC exclusiveness and with a lower risk. Add that to the fact that there are types of games that can only be done well on PC, the rise of indie development, and the juggernaut revenue of online gaming, and we have a buttload of PC exclusive games.

Take PC out of that, and insert Wii Ware, XBLA or PSN, and I can say the same thing. All 3 DD services are incredibly lucrative, profitable, and lower risk.

The PS2 is getting nowhere near what a 5yo PC gets today (playable games). Simple as that. And my brother's PC is still waiting for SPORE, The Sims 3, Battlefield Heroes, Starcraft 2 (which by then the PC will be 6yo), etc.

Spore requires a 128mb video card. How many 128MB cards were readily available for decent prices in 2003 again? Battlefield Heroes 2 requires Shader 2.0. Again, how cheap were cards in 03 that supported it? I mean, an average computer from 2002-2003 with a typical GFX card *might* handle bare minimum specs, and will get <20FPS on most of these stated games.

 

I'd argue that consoles still haven't gotten an WRPG of the quality of Fallout 2 or Morrowind (on PC). It is simply impossible to make a deep RPG on consoles without making it frustrating for the gamer (which is what happened to Morrowind on Xbox). That's why Oblivion got alot of hate from Morrowind and WRPG fans... Oblivion was a dumbed-down experience that is nowhere near a great RPG.

So you think Mass Effect sucked as a Western RPG?

I already explained this point, and how more and more console games are going to PC. The funny part is that PC is getting more exclusives than Wii/PS3/360 combined due to the sheer force of indie and small developers, the uniqueness of the keyboard+mouse and the revenue of online gaming.

Infact, PC is getting more exclusives than ever, and the best part is that they're are spread out and using a varied number of revenue schemes.

Again, keep The Princess Bride. I don't want it.

Trackmania is one of the the best racers I've played. Galactic Civ is near Civilization quality. WoW is the best MMORPG ever.... I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than the Graphixxxx..... You see, I'm not a graphic whore, I just want the best gameplay possible, and that is why I barely play any console, since it does not offer the deeper experience the PC has.

If you don't care about graphics then why are we arguing? Feel free to go play whatever games you want. Just don't say the PC is superior when it's obviously not and more expensive. I love GalCiv 2, but guess what? The frame rate is atrocious on my 1 year old dual core notebook. It's barely playable at times. My older wonderful 2001-2 PC has a snowball's chance in playing Civ4. Stuff like that happens, and again, it costs more cash to buy a new PC or upgrade than it's ever been to just buy a new video game system every 6-7 years. You can make any arguments you want about the PC market getting better and better. But when you have a studio like Flagship just closing down due to poor PC sales, and other PC developers getting swallowed up by other devs, I don't see how you can say the PC market is uber. It's not non-existant, and I agree it's in transition, but the Console gaming market, dollar for dollar, is growing at a larger rate. How many games on PC see 5 million sales? Very few. However, we've seen nearly a dozen this gen for consoles in just 2 years.

 

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Ssyn on 13 July 2008

You're a flat out moron if you think an Xbox 360/PS3 = 1500 gaming PC. A 400 is generous, comparison 300 would easily equal it stat wise. The only advantage that you guys listed that is legit is somewhat better gaming library, but PC still owns by a mile when it comes to shooters which is the 360's strongest point.



Deneidez on 14 July 2008
mrstickball said:

Last I checked, the X360 had pretty good OOoE due to the fact it has good branch prediction, and VMX units. No? Both the X360 and PS3 are built around Power4 microsystem archatecture, which handle OOoE fairly well.

Here's a paper on Power4 which both the Cell and Xenon are built around:

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/p/hardware/whitepapers/power4.pdf

Sufficive to say, I tend to think that the way that Power4 handles OOoE might be enough to handle your Dwarf Fortress :)

Last time I checked, they don't follow strictly Power4(especially X360) and no branch predicting isn't OoOE. :D

"Furthermore, the Xenon may be capable of running six threads at once, but the three types of branch-intensive code listed above are not as amenable to high levels of thread-level parallelization as graphics code. On the other hand, these types of code do benefit greatly from out-of-order execution, which Xenon lacks completely, a decent amount of execution core width, which Xenon also lacks; branch prediction hardware, which Xenon is probably short on; and large caches, which Xenon is definitely short on. The end result is a recipe for a console that provides developers with a wealth of graphics resources but that asks them to do more with less on the non-graphical side of gaming."

"Even if the PPE's branch prediction is significantly better than I think it is, the relatively meager 1MB L2 cache that the game control, AI, and physics code will have to share with procedural synthesis and other graphics code will ensure that programmers have a hard time getting good performance out of non-graphics parts of the game.

...

The Cell has only one PPE to the Xenon's three, which means that developers will have to cram all their game control, AI, and physics code into at most two threads that are sharing a very narrow execution core with no instruction window. (Don't bother suggesting that the PS3 can use its SPEs for branch-intensive code, because the SPEs lack branch prediction entirely.)"

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars/7

 

DF is nothing but non-graphics parts of the game. :D

(I just checked memory usage of DF. My current fortress takes about 300MB and I haven't played for a long... So that rules out PS3 right away. :D)

@Barozi

Halo 3 has high end graphics? A 400$ PC makes better visuals than that.

That's the proof for me, that you've never played Halo 3 and you know nothing about it. The Lights effects are for me the best I've seen in my life and I've played Crysis with the highest settings with DirectX 10, so I know what I'm talking about. FACT: Halo 3 has great graphics.

Crysis with high settings and on $400 PC, here you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpO4FwTpR3Q

(Sorry Ssyn, but even $400 PC can beat both. :/)



New crap available on mi pages!

Squilliam on 14 July 2008

How come people don't count the fact that the PC should in theory get $100 per year allotted to it for "general pc use" If the Sony boys can get away with counting Blu ray, then $100 a year to keep a reasonable computer that you're posting on already! Isn't too hard to stretch.

So between Live $50- General computer upgrades ($100 a year) and say 5 games - $50 we have up to say $200 per year to spend on hardware. That gives us a budget of $1400 if you count the initial cost of the Xbox360.

So initial build $800. (2005)

Upgrades for CPU/GPU/Ram/HDD in 2008 for the third year $600. 2008 (HD4850, Core 2, 2gb ram, 320gb HDD or so)

Then Next generation start again (2011)

This is like comparing the Iphone gen1/gen2. Gen1 cost $400 more but the gen 2 will cost $240 over 24months more than the gen1 and actually will end up costing the buyer more over time in spite of costing less.

I've been a bad PC gamer recently. I've hardly touched a new game, I just play Civ4 and all the expansions.





Tease.