Video & PC Game Discussion

Lindsay Lohan wrote: sleeper wrote: I notice a lot of this conversation is about graphics, so is that the most important thing for all of you in gaming? For me its playabilaty. Lindsay you constantly site that PC games leave consol games behind after 1 or 2 years but that is something that has only happend in the last 5 years, befor then I prefered PS1 graphics to PC. And to make full use of the PC's better graphics now you have to make regular updates to its internal systems and the cost for these PC and keeping them at the top gaming abilaty is HUGE. Consols are cost effective, easier to use and a lot closerto PC abilaty than you seem preperd to admit. The only real benefit with consoles is that they are CHEAP AND EASY TO USE. Nothing else...PC's are for serious gamers...a console is just a toy And certainly the gameplay for typical console games are dreadful and typical console-companies like Capcom or Konami is DANGEROUSLY unoriginal and boring games... The best games are fairly old my good man i'd say you have to had a Commandore 64 to understand! And as said $500 a year is all that is needed...i have had my pc for 1 year now and it can play any new game at full graphics! And btw saying that you PREFERED PS1 graphics to PC graphics is just overly silly to say!

Well its nice to know that you have 500 pounds (I know your not english but neither of us are american) to throw away every year. Tell me how big is your mansion.

And though PC games of the time may have had higher polygon counts the skins and textures looked awfull so I preferd PS1. If you think the game play of typical consol games is dreadfull then you dont know any typical consol games, its much easier to pick up and play than a PC is and theres no way that you can denie that.

I notice a lot of this conversation is about graphics, so is that the most important thing for all of you in gaming? For me its playabilaty. Lindsay you constantly site that PC games leave consol games behind after 1 or 2 years but that is something that has only happend in the last 5 years, befor then I prefered PS1 graphics to PC. And to make full use of the PC's better graphics now you have to make regular updates to its internal systems and the cost for these PC and keeping them at the top gaming abilaty is HUGE.

Consols are cost effective, easier to use and a lot closerto PC abilaty than you seem preperd to admit.

AtLossForWords wrote: I'm contemplating getting an Xbox 360, but only because Perfect Dark Zero looks so so good!

Uhhh...hate to burst your bubble, but IMO it's mediocre as can be. The graphics are very nice, but there are a ton of little annoying things that ebb aways at the fun. If you're expecting a time as fun as with the N64 PD, you'll be disappointed.

My friends like it, to a degree, but I think it is just plain mediocre. I would say it's a letdown, but since I expected it to be pretty mediocre, it's not really a letdown.

I'd give it a 6 or 7 out of 10.

IMO, the only essential 360 launch games are Call of Duty 2 (best historical war game ever) and Condemned.

Get a 360 for the games to be released in 2006;Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion (Medieval RPG) Mass Effect (Sci-fi RPG) and Too Human (Sci-fi action) are what I'm going to get a 360 for.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ in two years PC based games will leave the XBox 360 behind, just as it happened with the original XBox. The games will still run on older PCs (and consoles) with reduced graphics. One thing that will be introduced to PC games are advanced physics using special hardware ... but IMO it will take another 2 years until this feature really becomes interesting.

Yes i have heard about having graphics card with their own physics processor or whatever and it sounded really interesting looking at forexample what the HAVOK engine could do.

In a few years time physics will become big-deal in gaming...soon most FPS will have the abilty to blow up everything (And make it realistic unlike the red faction thingie)

Ah it would have been awfully fun to play battlefield 2 with the ability to blow up everything eh?

Btw mike who do you think will "win" in the battle for the New "dvd" format?

stonebeard wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: stonebeard wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: Consoles in general are built to cheaply to be profitable so console games are often more expansive than PC-games and you also have to live with knowing that the graphics you see on the first PS3 game forexample is going to be just as good as a PS3 game relased 5 years after. This is not true. The graphics for launch games for most all next-gen games (when compared to the previous generation) are demonstrably better. After a few years go by and the developers really disect the console and get everything out of it that they can, the games released thereafter are incredibly better than the launch games, both in graphics and design, simply because the developers know the ins and outs and what the console is made of and can juice it for all it's got. When I see not-prerendered pics and footage for MGS4 on the PS3, presumably a launch title or soon after, I get excited because it has the best graphics I have ever seen in a game. It makes Half-Life 2 look like Tetris. And I know that that game is using far less than 50% of the PS3's total power. Hah it takes a maximum year of 1 year before the graphics for an console system seems dated...i mean ps2 games today looks like the kind of games you could get for pc 4 years ago. Comparing a dated game like Half-life 2 with a new PS3 game aint remotly fair, besides if you want the good graphics you look to Unreal Engine 3 the most advanced graphics engine EVER! Oh, well OK. But X360 games, at their current level of graphical capability, hardly look different than high-end PC graphics. Call of Duty 2 on X360 is identical in almost every way to the PC version, except for less players in multiplayer. But CoD isn't even the best representation of the X360's launch lineup graphical capability. The gap between PC graphics and the next-gen console graphics is incredibly thin now; the next gen systems are basically computers with a controller.

Look at it this way a HIGH-END pc with super processor and super graphics-card is capable of releasing graphics beyond of what atleast an  X360 could produce

But certainlty you can not produce games that will only run with an HIGH-END pc you have to produce games that will run nicely on a STANDARD-PC and thats basically aslo a difference because the consoles have all the same amount of power available so THEN the gaming industry can produce games that milks every percent out of the console and usually when a console is firstly released it will take about 6 months before STANDARD-PC's are at the same level and you can expect equal graphics quality.

This thing happens every time and happened due to the release of the playstation 2 where everyobdy was cheering its graphics that in reality could have been done better on a decent pc.

The system a ps2 originally run was the equavilent to a p-II system with 450mhz and 128mb ram. And if you had a pc with the same system set up you would not get the same performance because pc's also has operating systems and programs in the background which degrades performance and it is also meant be much more VERSITAILE than any console system which is optimized for gaming and gaming only.

^

As said i do not doubt that movies will benefit greatly from the Bluray/HD-DVD format as DVD's today is already horribly compressed...But we where mainly talking about a gaming pc so i dont think that any games that would need to be pressed onto HD-DVD/Bluray yet.

And yes as you said in a year or so games will propably beging to optimalize towards 64bit processor systems and dual core config.

Anyways who do you think will be the leading format HD-DVD or Bluray?

HD-DVD benefits:

Backward compatible with DVD

Cheaper

Easier to use

Bluray benefits:

Greater storage capacity

Better copy protection (Well atleast a benefit for the movie industry )

Playstation 3 uses it? (If you think that is a benefit anyway)

To me it looks like HD-DVD is winning