Xbox 360

[Garfield_]

What PC specs can be compared to the new Xbox 360 ?

[iconic-]

im still too busy laughing at the fact you think you have a shitty pc...
what can't you run right now? i mean, not at TOP TOP settings- but at high and unplayable?

i love my ps2, but i think xbox360 might be the way i go seemingly only because i play pc games to play w/ other people and Live is one of the biggest draws for me. plus i think thas the way many of my friends in the dorms will go, so we can have giant networked games together.

[Uriel]

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/factsheet.htm

Well, you've got 3 3.2 gig processors, but multiple processors does not mean better.
The Video card im a little confused about

[Garfield_]

There is three 3.2Ghz processors in xbox360 ?

The reason why i asked was, i need to play these new games and the cheapest way to play at the top top details is to get a console. You cant really compare the specs of a console with a pc, its not the same stuff as i understand.

My current pc runs with a p4 2.8Ghz, 1GB ddr and an x800 pro graphics card, im 100% sure i cant even run Alan Wake with this shit and i need to run it on maximum details. Anyone knowing the price that 360 will have once its released and when is it released ?

EDIT: ive got the impression that you can run XBOX like a pc with windows xp etc, is this coming to 360 too ?

[Uriel]

"Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each"

sorry bout that

[poseyjmac]

its irrelevant and you can't compare the two anyway. games will be streamlined for the hardware in the xbox360, like any other console. all you need to know is xbox360 will be able to run games like elder scrolls: oblivion at the same detail as highest detail on the PC, according to the devs.

[Uriel]

Alright dude, before you go off ditching your PC like an ungratful bastard, think about your TV. The Game may look good, but it wont look much better than a ps2 game if you're playing on a crappy screen. And eventually, the PC will outrun and spank the console until the next console comes out. Its happened before.

[Garfield_]

What kind of TV do you need to make console games look the same as on PC, same sharpness etc. And buying a new PC to play Alan Wake is way to expensive. Last summer i spend 2000 USD on my current PC and now i cant even play FEAR at maximum details.
How am i then going to run UT 2007 on lowest :D

Havent looked into other games than Alan Wake and this is why i want a 360 instead of wasting 3 times more money on a new PC.

[Uriel]

Dont get a new PC, just upgrade it

[Garfield_]

Dont get a new PC, just upgrade it

Im not sure if an upgrade is enough, i would atleast have to get an amd 64 3400 + another gig of ram. And i would still not be able to play FEAR at highest without any lagg at all :D

[DigiQ8]

x360 video card = R500 from ATI
R520 will release for PC later this year , and R580 will release next year, as well as Geforce 8.
looks like PC will be pwn this next gen consoles very fast ( talking about the graphics )

[Warbie]

You certainly get more out of your hardware with a console.

I upgraded for HL2 (A64 3500 oc, x800 xtpe, 1 gig pc3700) and already recent titles aren't running as well as I'd like. It's the opposite with consoles - games becoming more impressive the older the machine gets. So much so, infact, that first and last generation titles differ in quality as your average pc upgrade will over your old rig (but in this case, using the same, aging hardware)

RE4 on the GC is a good example, and both runs and looks better than FEAR on my current pc.

(I can't believe that after spending all that cash the thought of upgrading again has already crossed my mind :/)

[Warbie]

x360 video card = R500 from ATI
R520 will release for PC later this year , and R580 will release next year, as well as Geforce 8.
looks like PC will be pwn this next gen consoles very fast ( talking about the graphics )

We all know it doesn't work like that though.

Consoles and pcs cannot be compared spec for spec (decicated gaming machines get sooo much more out of their hardware)

[chu]

I really don't want to buy a console. The only thing that would persuade me is to play it on my 42" plasma.

[VictimOfScience]

It sounds like you already have a pretty nice computer. Once the first PPUs hit shelves at the end of the year, A LOT of load is going to be taken off of the CPUs, so that will help many people who have a middle of the road CPU rightnow. Get one of those and maybe a new GPU if the R520s look good compared to the nvidia 7800s.

That said, consoles provide a totally different gaming experience, so it really depends on if you want that experience too. I love my PS2 and SNES and NES and Genesis and Dreamcast and (to a lesser extent) my Turbografx 16, but my PC gives me a much better experience when it comes to adventure games, FPSs, and RTSs.

Up to this point, consoles had offered very different types of games, but when the xbox rolled into town, much of that changed due to the porting of PC games both ways. The xbox is really just a dumbed-down PC anyway, so this makes sense.

This next generation, however, will be (IMHO) not as much fun as the last few when consoles were consoles and PCs were PCs. Here we are going to see many more games coming out for both console systems and PCs. I tend to think this will lead to less originality in game development, but we'll see what happens. I hope all of the new technology will inspire devs to realize their creative visions that have heretofore gone unrealized due to lack of powerful enough tech.

[bam23]

Go get an SLI system since you're so hellbent on running everything at maximum detail.

[Alan Freeman]

hey Garfiled Im Trying To Send You A Message, Soo Clear Out You Message Box :)

[Uriel]

Just remember, when you play on a console it wont look as good as it could on a PC, there wont be as much content on the game, its easier on the PC (FPS are), there are no RTS games, slimmer variety of games, not as many features, and multiplayer isnt as good. Another thing that concerns me is cheating. There are online games you can cheat with on the PS2. As for X-Box live, i dont know, but the thought of paying more per month, just to play on the net seems ridiculeous to me. But with X-Box being made more and more customizable i dont know how they are going to prevent cheating. Perhaps they have a Microsoft PB.

[Garfield_]

hey Garfiled Im Trying To Send You A Message, Soo Clear Out You Message Box :)

Done.

I wont get a 360 to play online and FPS games, only games like Alan Wake and as it seems Silent Hill 5. Just racing and third-person games. Ill use my PC to go for Half Life 3 :D

[Garfield_]

You think SH 5 is coming to 360 ?

[poseyjmac]

Alright dude, before you go off ditching your PC like an ungratful bastard, think about your TV. The Game may look good, but it wont look much better than a ps2 game if you're playing on a crappy screen. And eventually, the PC will outrun and spank the console until the next console comes out. Its happened before.

you can hook up the xbox360 to your monitor. gg

x360 video card = R500 from ATI
R520 will release for PC later this year , and R580 will release next year, as well as Geforce 8.
looks like PC will be pwn this next gen consoles very fast ( talking about the graphics )

you are basing a hunch off the fact that 520 is a higher number than 500. as highly intelligent as that way of thinking is, do you have any proof about this 'pwning'?

cmon now, im a hardcore pc gamer, never owned a console since snes, but lets refrain from PC fanboyism and just state the facts.

[Cole]

you can hook up the xbox360 to your monitor. gg
Ok so your gonna find 4 of your friends, play some split screen or xbox live on your monitor? lol...

[Warbie]

Yeh - who wants to play their Xbox 360 on a tiny monitor?

I'm going to play mine on a big tv, while sitting on a comfy sofa \o/

Eventually pc hardware will come out that can produce better visuals than these next gen consoles. But only 'better' on paper. The most visually impressive titles around will still appear on consoles (imo) ...... just as they still do today (creativity and art direction > all).

Not that this matters too much, gameplay will always be more important.

[OCybrManO]

Ok so your gonna find 4 of your friends, play some split screen or xbox live on your monitor? lol...Actually, yes, I have done that on my 19" monitor... and it worked just fine. My 19" monitor viewed from about 2 or 3 feet away takes up about the same POV as my 51" HDTV from across the living room. As long as you can fit enough people up close it's just as good. We only did it because the TV was currently in use... but it worked.

[poseyjmac]

Yeh - who wants to play their Xbox 360 on a tiny monitor?

I'm going to play mine on a big tv, while sitting on a comfy sofa \o/

the people who don't have a nice tv, the people who have a really nice monitor thats not tiny.

[poseyjmac]

Ok so your gonna find 4 of your friends, play some split screen or xbox live on your monitor? lol...

ill be playing games like oblivion on my monitor in my room, and MP games with friends on my HDTV. *gasp* crazy concept eh

[Warbie]

the people who don't have a nice tv, the people who have a really nice monitor thats not tiny.

Consider then that some games may look smooth as butter when running on a tv, yet may look very jerky on a monitor. Monitors need a high fps, tvs do not.

[poseyjmac]

Consider then that some games may look smooth as butter when running on a tv, yet may look very jerky on a monitor. Monitors need a high fps, tvs do not.

what are you talking about? i used to hook my computer up to my TV and there was no framerate difference. and ive seen plenty of jerky games that people play on their xbox or ps2 hooked up to their TVs

[Warbie]

I never said there would be a difference in framerate :/ Monitors and tvs do not display images in the same way. Have a read - http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html (basically - a game that only runs at 30 fps will look much smoother on a tv than it will on a monitor)

'and ive seen plenty of jerky games that people play on their xbox or ps2 hooked up to their TVs'

Sure. I said TVs do not need high fps, that doesn't mean games won't look choppy if the rate is real low (Halo 2 and Perfect Dark spring to mind)

If you're playing an Xbox 360 game on your monitor, and the framerate drops, the effect will be far more noticable and choppy than if you were playing on a tv.

[poseyjmac]

ok, thats nice and all, but supposedly the xbox360 will be running games at much higher framerate than the xbox runs its games, so 30fps on an xbox360 isn't going to be very common.. and despite that, since the xbox360 will have its own AA and AF implementations, its going to look better overall on a monitor, which is why many will use their monitors.

[Garfield_]

So you guys are saying that UT 2007 on 360 might only run in 60 FPS ?
I thought it would run like 100 FPS, all 360 games.

[poseyjmac]

So you guys are saying that UT 2007 on 360 might only run in 60 FPS ?
I thought it would run like 100 FPS, all 360 games.

whered you pull that from? the first part i mean

[Vigilante]

I hope the schematics for the xbox 360 burn in a plane crash. Go PS3 and Revolution!

[DreadLord]

I find it funny that anyone here thinks 360 graphics could ever possibly look better than current PC graphics. I'm going to bet you right now that BF2's graphics on my PC right now are waaayyy better than 360's graphics will achieve. Consoles can't keep up with PC's. Leave them for the 12 year olds.

[Warbie]

ok, thats nice and all, but supposedly the xbox360 will be running games at much higher framerate than the xbox runs its games, so 30fps on an xbox360 isn't going to be very common.. and despite that, since the xbox360 will have its own AA and AF implementations, its going to look better overall on a monitor, which is why many will use their monitors.

We'll see.

There will be times when framerates drop. AA and AF are also very noticable on a tv.

The best way to play Xbox 360 (imo) will be on a TV, preferably a HDTV.

[Warbie]

I find it funny that anyone here thinks 360 graphics could ever possibly look better than current PC graphics. I'm going to bet you right now that BF2's graphics on my PC right now are waaayyy better than 360's graphics will achieve. Consoles can't keep up with PC's. Leave them for the 12 year olds.

What rubbish. I think Okami on the PS2 looks better than BF2.

Hardware does not equal good visuals.

I can't wait untill Resident Evil 5 is released :) (oh, I think RE4 on the GC is more impressive than BF2 as well)

//edit I just read your input in the Band Brothers thread. And you talk about 12 year olds :/

[poseyjmac]

I find it funny that anyone here thinks 360 graphics could ever possibly look better than current PC graphics. I'm going to bet you right now that BF2's graphics on my PC right now are waaayyy better than 360's graphics will achieve. Consoles can't keep up with PC's. Leave them for the 12 year olds.

do you know whats even funnier?

http://www.elderscrolls.com/art/obliv_xbox360_screens_01.htm

the fact that you're wrong. hilarious huh

[Uriel]

Okay, its happened and it will happen again. Right now the X-Box 360 looks like a High end PC, just like when the X-Box first came out, it looked great. But as time lingered, the PC continued to strive forward and make the X-Box look like a child's toy. THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS. And the better graphics get, the greater the need is for a better TV. This is why montiors are great... and why PC's are great. And the X-Box 360 isnt even out. While they're planning on its release, the PC is continually enchancing their hardware.

And stop comparing games to BF2, Resident Evil is a completely different game. You are not running around is a big ass map in Resident Evil, you dont have 64 players in Resident Evil.

[Garfield_]

We cant argue about this PC vs XBOX. When the first xbox came it pwned pc games graphics, but later the pc got updated... xbox and all other consoles cant be upgraded, they are not built to be upgradeable.

So consoles win when they first get released, the keep the first place for few months, then the PC pwns the consoles, then we wait few years for the next gen consoles....

[Garfield_]

I find it funny that anyone here thinks 360 graphics could ever possibly look better than current PC graphics. I'm going to bet you right now that BF2's graphics on my PC right now are waaayyy better than 360's graphics will achieve. Consoles can't keep up with PC's. Leave them for the 12 year olds.

Can you like post a high resolution screen shot of your so called " waaayyy better than 360 graphics " since i really doubt that.

BF2 on PC with your stuff vs. UT 2007 on 360 ???

[dream431ca]

Can you like post a high resolution screen shot of your so called " waaayyy better than 360 graphics " since i really doubt that.

BF2 on PC with your stuff vs. UT 2007 on 360 ???

You must remember..there are people who will only like PC...no matter how powerful or how much better looking the graphics are on the consoles are. I like to call them PC fanboys. I don't like arguing with a fanboy because you can't. They start making fun of you personally after they have nothing more to say...of course when they start doing that, that means you win, because they can't think of a proper defence to the argument. :D

[Uriel]

OMFG, you people do not get it, UT2007 and BF2 are competely different. You have ABSOLUTELY HUGE MAPS on one game, and medium/small maps on the other. The number of players effects graphics too. You're not playing with 64 players on UT2007. Besides, one game was released before the other and one ISNT EVEN RELEASED.

And i must say, the comparison between RE4 and BF2 was the definition of idiocy. I mean Resident Evil doesnt even have complete 3d backgrounds.

[Garfield_]

We do only compare graphics quality, remember that.

[OCybrManO]

I never said there would be a difference in framerate :/ Monitors and tvs do not display images in the same way. Have a read - http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html (basically - a game that only runs at 30 fps will look much smoother on a tv than it will on a monitor)

'and ive seen plenty of jerky games that people play on their xbox or ps2 hooked up to their TVs'

Sure. I said TVs do not need high fps, that doesn't mean games won't look choppy if the rate is real low (Halo 2 and Perfect Dark spring to mind)

If you're playing an Xbox 360 game on your monitor, and the framerate drops, the effect will be far more noticable and choppy than if you were playing on a tv.First, TV is traditionally filmed in an interlaced format, just as it is displayed... not converted from 30fps progressive into an interlaced signal. Each individual field (all the odd lines or all the even lines) update is an image from a different time. A full frame is two fields from the same time. So, it's not really running at 30fps or 60fps. It's running at 60Hz and 60 fields per second. There's a difference. TV games render a new field for every refresh. That's why it has the fluidity of 60fps... because there is an update 1/60 of a second... just as a game running at 60fps. The benefit is that it requires less processing power, but the downside is that it sacrifices detail.

The smoothing factor observed in real video comes from motion blurring caused by the way the camera's light sensing and recording mechanisms gather and store light information... not because the signal is interlaced. Interlacing 30 full frames per second was only useful because it decreased the amount of bandwidth required to send a signal with a high enough refresh rate to prevent eye strain from flickering (not as much of an issue in dark theaters with very bright screens, because of the anatomy of the eye) and it cut the cost of the equipment needed to record the video.

Now, interlacing hurts more than it helps... since bandwidth isn't much of a problem. If the transmission method can handle the added strain of progressive scan at the same refresh rate (so we're talking 60 fields, or half-frames, per second vs 60 frames per second... not the 60 fields per second of TV with the 24 frames per second of film used in theaters) the result is actually slightly smoother motion with twice as many vertical lines to display detail in each frame.

The reason some games run slower in 480p than 480i is that the system doesn't have the fillrate to handle rendering twice the pixels (because, power wise, interlacing is like running at half the resolution of progressive scan). That's being corrected in the next-gen consoles, with the Xbox 360 designed to run flawlessly on at least 720p in every game... and the PS3 promising support for at least 1080p in every game. Now, since progressive-scan HDTV resolutions work the same way as normal monitor resolutions it will look just as sharp and smooth on your monitor as it will on your HDTV.


EDIT:OMFG, you people do not get it, UT2007 and BF2 are competely different. You have ABSOLUTELY HUGE MAPS on one game, and medium/small maps on the other. The number of players effects graphics too. You're not playing with 64 players on UT2007. Besides, one game was released before the other and one ISNT EVEN RELEASED.You don't know much about UE3 and the games which will be using it... do you? I suggest you read up on it before you tell us what it can and can't do. It uses streaming technology that can handle maps much larger than even BF2... in fact, as large as you can fit on your hard drive. It is also supposed to support more than 64 players, IIRC. UT2007 is supposed to have a gametype based on Onslaught but with maps that are many times larger than the largest ones seen in UT2004. The sheer magnitude capable with UE3 (in addition to the impressive graphics and physics) is why it was chosen to run the upcoming MMORPG, Huxley. That's also part of the reason why Sony are licensing the engine making it available, in evaluation version form, for the PS3 development community as part of the PS3 software development kit.

[Uriel]

Yet my point still stands, one game is RELEASED, the other IS NOT. You cannot compare different games, unless they are built on the SAME engine or they are ported to other systems. This isnt about comparing games, you CANNOT do that (unless they are VERY similar in gameplay), its about comparing PS3/X-Box/PC.

And as I understand it, UE3 (or the next unreal tournament/championship) will support a max of 16 players on a NON-dedicated server.

[Warbie]

First, TV is traditionally filmed in an interlaced format, just as it is displayed... not converted from 30fps progressive into an interlaced signal. Each individual field (all the odd lines or all the even lines) update is an image from a different time. A full frame is two fields from the same time. So, it's not really running at 30fps or 60fps. It's running at 60Hz and 60 fields per second. There's a difference. TV games render a new field for every refresh. That's why it has the fluidity of 60fps... because there is an update 1/60 of a second... just as a game running at 60fps. The benefit is that it requires less processing power, but the downside is that it sacrifices detail.

The smoothing factor observed in real video comes from motion blurring caused by the way the camera's light sensing and recording mechanisms gather and store light information... not because the signal is interlaced. Interlacing 30 full frames per second was only useful because it decreased the amount of bandwidth required to send a signal with a high enough refresh rate to prevent eye strain from flickering (not as much of an issue in dark theaters with very bright screens, because of the anatomy of the eye) and it cut the cost of the equipment needed to record the video.

Now, interlacing hurts more than it helps... since bandwidth isn't much of a problem. If the transmission method can handle the added strain of progressive scan at the same refresh rate (so we're talking 60 fields, or half-frames, per second vs 60 frames per second... not the 60 fields per second of TV with the 24 frames per second of film used in theaters) the result is actually slightly smoother motion with twice as many vertical lines to display detail in each frame.

The reason some games run slower in 480p than 480i is that the system doesn't have the fillrate to handle rendering twice the pixels (because, power wise, interlacing is like running at half the resolution of progressive scan). That's being corrected in the next-gen consoles, with the Xbox 360 designed to run flawlessly on at least 720p in every game... and the PS3 promising support for at least 1080p in every game. Now, since progressive-scan HDTV resolutions work the same way as normal monitor resolutions it will look just as sharp and smooth on your monitor as it will on your HDTV.

I stand corrected (said the man in the orthopedic shoes :)) I didn't realise this was the case. Does that mean it may look smoother on a standard tele? (I havne't purchased my hdtv yet)

[Cole]

So, it's not really running at 30fps or 60fps. It's running at 60Hz and 60 fields per second.
Fields per Second = Fps
Frames per Second = Fps
Muahahahahahahhahaha :)

[Warbie]

And i must say, the comparison between RE4 and BF2 was the definition of idiocy. I mean Resident Evil doesnt even have complete 3d backgrounds.

eh?

You said, 'I find it funny that anyone here thinks 360 graphics could ever possibly look better than current PC graphics'. Did you mean support as many players, or cater for maps of a certain scale etc etc instead of 'look'?

From an aesthetic point of view, I think RE4 looks better than BF2. (RE4 is in 3d btw) I certainly wasn't comparing like for like.

What game we think looks better is subjective. The most impressive visuals i've seen in years is in Okami on the PS2.

[OCybrManO]

Fields per Second = Fps
Frames per Second = Fps
Muahahahahahahhahaha :)Oops. I went through changing the instances of "fps" into the longer versions "fields per second" and "frames per second" because I knew it would get confusing for some people. I guess I missed a couple. :E

[Garfield_]

Now, since progressive-scan HDTV resolutions work the same way as normal monitor resolutions it will look just as sharp and smooth on your monitor as it will on your HDTV.

So you are saying that if i use my 360 with my PC monitor it will look just as good and sharp as it does on HDTV ?

[Cole]

Oops. I went through changing the instances of "fps" into the longer versions "fields per second" and "frames per second" because I knew it would get confusing for some people. I guess I missed a couple.
lol :). I knew what you ment. I see something and I crack down on it :).

[Sanius]

Alright dude, before you go off ditching your PC like an ungratful bastard, think about your TV. The Game may look good, but it wont look much better than a ps2 game if you're playing on a crappy screen. And eventually, the PC will outrun and spank the console until the next console comes out. Its happened before.

What are you, a moron? Your TV doesn't matter at ALL, unless it's made in the 1960's. Seriously.
It's really hard to understand how stupid most PC gamers are. Seriously, PC gaming isn't always the most powerful. Have fun spending $1000 on your next PC upgrade.

I don't mean to piss off PC gamers, i'm one myself. But I can't stand the type of PC gamer who goes out of his way to make consoles look bad "Oh look, you have to play with a joystick!"

[Garfield_]

I dont like joystics or gamepads, but i found this the cheapest possible way to get to play the next gen games :)
Now i have a few new questions.

This Xbox 360, is it possible to play it with like a 19" LCD monitor that i use for PC games, if how will the quality be ?
Can i use my newly bougth Megaworks 250D for 360 ?

[Sanius]

I think you can play it on your monitor with a 3rdparty item

[OCybrManO]

So you are saying that if i use my 360 with my PC monitor it will look just as good and sharp as it does on HDTV ?If you connect it in such a way that it doesn't degrade the signal, yes.

However, if they don't release a VGA connecter it might be expensive to do it ($70-100 if you already have the monitor). You would have to buy their HDTV component video cables then run those to a component to vga transcoder... like this (http://xbox.about.com/od/xboxaccessories/fr/vdz3rev.htm) or this (http://www.lik-sang.com/info.php?category=219&products_id=4233&).

[Garfield_]

Yeah its worth it, im not going to buy a HDTV and as far as i know using a PC monitor makes the quality better and sharper, but will it look laggy or something ?

[DEATH eVADER]

Dont get a new PC, just upgrade it
Upgrading costs more than buying a whole new computer :hmph:

[Uriel]

What are you, a moron? Your TV doesn't matter at ALL, unless it's made in the 1960's. Seriously.
It's really hard to understand how stupid most PC gamers are. Seriously, PC gaming isn't always the most powerful. Have fun spending $1000 on your next PC upgrade.

I don't mean to piss off PC gamers, i'm one myself. But I can't stand the type of PC gamer who goes out of his way to make consoles look bad "Oh look, you have to play with a joystick!"

Fraid so bub, Take your normal TV, use your S-Video hook up, and play the same game. Ive tried this with Halo. Now take a screenshot from a game you see on the web, compare that screenshot with the game on your TV. See the difference??

Now, I dont have anything against Consoles (cept X-Box cuz of that bastard Bill Gates who I refuse to give money to until he craps out a good OS), I own a Gamecube. But never would I sell my computer or ditch it for a console. You get so much more out of a PC.

And I'm hoping when the new consoles are released that it may be possible to duke it head to head with different systems. Then I can say "Oh look, you have to play with a joystick!".

[Warbie]

You must admit though, the pc only cater for a small variety of video games. For most genres you have to have a console to experience.

[Axyon]

I think you can play it on your monitor with a 3rdparty itemNo, VGA connectors are first party, and may even be included with the console.

[CptStern]

What are you, a moron? Your TV doesn't matter at ALL, unless it's made in the 1960's. Seriously.
It's really hard to understand how stupid most PC gamers are. Seriously, PC gaming isn't always the most powerful. Have fun spending $1000 on your next PC upgrade.

I don't mean to piss off PC gamers, i'm one myself. But I can't stand the type of PC gamer who goes out of his way to make consoles look bad "Oh look, you have to play with a joystick!"

sorry but I have to agree with that other guy to an extent ..there's a world of difference between consoles and pc's


compare this ps2 screen of Bf2 Modern Combat

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/article/602/602748/battlefield-2-modern-combat-20050408000306941.jpg


and then look at this screen of Battlefield 2 for the pc

http://internetgames.about.com/library/screen/nbf2scr14.htm


notice that the ps2 version's HUD is a simplified version of the pc version


like it or not console games are usually dumbed down versions of their pc counterparts ..that's because they're made to appeal to a wide range of gamers ..from casual to hardcore, they want to make it accesible to all ..whereas you have to be a bit more sophisticated a gamer to play pc games ..what with all the updates, tweaking etc


both systems have their place ..I prefer pc's ..others prefer consoles ..to each his own



oh and I wont be getting an xbox360 ....most of the games will be released on pc anyways ..I'll have a long hard look at ps3 when it comes out

[Axyon]

sorry but I have to agree with that other guy to an extent ..there's a world of difference between consoles and pc's


compare this ps2 screen of Bf2 Modern Combat

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/article/602/602748/battlefield-2-modern-combat-20050408000306941.jpg


and then look at this screen of Battlefield 2 for the pc

http://internetgames.about.com/library/screen/nbf2scr14.htm


notice that the ps2 version's HUD is a simplified version of the pc version


like it or not console games are usually dumbed down versions of their pc counterparts ..that's because they're made to appeal to a wide range of gamers ..from casual to hardcore, they want to make it accesible to all ..whereas you have to be a bit more sophisticated a gamer to play pc games ..what with all the updates, tweaking etc


both systems have their place ..I prefer pc's ..others prefer consoles ..to each his own



oh and I wont be getting an xbox360 ....most of the games will be released on pc anyways ..I'll have a long hard look at ps3 when it comes outI hate taking sides on this issue, but your argument kind of gets thrown out when you realise that BF2 is releasing on the X360 without any dumbing down, and most probably some graphical improvements.

[Nabobalis]

That is one ugly Hud

[Gargantou]

I want a HDTV from Samsung, but they're so damn expensive over here, a 26" one is 1,300 USD.:\
Stupid Sweden...

[Garfield_]

What is the best to play on a 19" LCD monitor for PC's or a 28" CRT TV, maybe widescreen, the price is almost the same on both of these in Sweden and i dont really care about the screen size, just the quality, sharpness etc.

[CptStern]

I hate taking sides on this issue, but your argument kind of gets thrown out when you realise that BF2 is releasing on the X360 without any dumbing down, and most probably some graphical improvements.

the xbox 360 version is BF2: Modern Combat ..as far as I can tell it's the same as the xbox and ps2 versions but with better graphics ...I'll have to take your word for it that it is indeed a more robust version cuz I cant find any screens with the hud

[Axyon]

the xbox 360 version is BF2: Modern Combat ..as far as I can tell it's the same as the xbox and ps2 versions but with better graphics ...I'll have to take your word for it that it is indeed a more robust version cuz I cant find any screens with the hudThere's no confirmation that the X360 is getting Modern Combat, in fact, most signs point toward it getting BF2. If it did get MC, there'd be no doubt that it would be totally revamped and vastly improved.

[CptStern]

it is Modern Combat

it's called BF2: Modern Combat (http://www.talkxbox.com/gamecovers/802.jpg)


http://www.talkxbox.com/game802.html


but again I cant find anything that says it'll be any different than the ps2 and xbox versions

this says (http://xbox.ign.com/articles/600/600528p1.html) that they're essentially the same with better graphics:

"The Xbox 360 version supports more players online at one time (we were unable to ascertain an exact number), a handful of online cooperative modes, and online commander and squad leader views. Another online feature that's planned, if Microsoft supports backward compatibility, is the ability to play your Xbox 360 version against a friend who's got the Xbox version"

they'd have to be the same game if that were possible

[Garfield_]

This cant be 360 grapihcs http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/article/602/602748/battlefield-2-modern-combat-20050408000306941.jpg

[CptStern]

i think that's the ps2

[Garfield_]

Ohh that explains the ugly gfx =)

[OCybrManO]

The lack of complexity in gameplay stems from the relative simplicity of the controller... not because the console gamers are necessarily less intelligent or "sofisticated." You just don't have enough keys on a controller to duplicate the controlls of BF2. Controllers have... what... at most about ten buttons and a couple of sticks? Just with my left hand I've got quick access to like 25+ keys. Then, on the mouse I have 4 buttons and a scroll wheel that can be clicked, too. Also, the HUD's simplicity could be caused, in part, by the TV's low resolution. You have a few options: Take up a large portion of the screen to show the same information, make everything small but unintelligeble, or cut down on the amount of information supplied to the player at any given moment.

[Garfield_]

Some people wont be playing games like BF2 on consoles since it kinda sucks without a mouse and keyboard, the mouse itself represents the gun and the keyboard legs etc.
with a console controll its like playing flight simulators with a steeringwheel. Im only buying my 360 to play games like Alan Wake nothing more.

[CptStern]

The lack of complexity in gameplay stems from the relative simplicity of the controller... not because the console gamers are necessarily less intelligent or "sofisticated." You just don't have enough keys on a controller to duplicate the controlls of BF2. Controllers have... what... at most about ten buttons and a couple of sticks? Just with my left hand I've got quick access to like 25+ keys. Then, on the mouse I have 4 buttons and a scroll wheel that can be clicked, too. Also, the HUD's simplicity could be caused, in part, by the TV's low resolution. You have a few options: Take up a large portion of the screen to show the same information, make everything small but unintelligeble, or cut down on the amount of information supplied to the player at any given moment.


I agree that all plays a big part of it ...but console games are designed for the casual gamer ...it's meant to be accesible to all types of players, whereas with pcs genres are more well defined. Probably why rts' arent all that popular on consoles

[Axyon]

it is Modern Combat

it's called BF2: Modern Combat (http://www.talkxbox.com/gamecovers/802.jpg)


http://www.talkxbox.com/game802.html


but again I cant find anything that says it'll be any different than the ps2 and xbox versions

this says (http://xbox.ign.com/articles/600/600528p1.html) that they're essentially the same with better graphics:

"The Xbox 360 version supports more players online at one time (we were unable to ascertain an exact number), a handful of online cooperative modes, and online commander and squad leader views. Another online feature that's planned, if Microsoft supports backward compatibility, is the ability to play your Xbox 360 version against a friend who's got the Xbox version"

they'd have to be the same game if that were possibleRead the rest of the IGN preview that you linked to. How are they supposed to be the same game if the Xbox 360 version supports more players and implements more features? Heck, the bloody game sounds exactly like BF2 with a different name!

[CptStern]

I dont know ...it makes little sense ..it would have to be the same game if both xbox and xbox360 players can play on the same servers

[OCybrManO]

I agree that all plays a big part of it ...but console games are designed for the casual gamer ...it's meant to be accesible to all types of players, whereas with pcs genres are more well defined. Probably why rts' arent all that popular on consoles... and, yet, turn-based strategy/combat like RPG combat and Advance Wars do well on consoles. Once again, I think it's the control scheme. RTS games really benefit from a keyboard & mouse combination. You need fast and accurate movement combined with a lot of buttons/hotkeys for various commands to get the full effect of an RTS with a lot of units and buildings. That's the way I remember it from playing RTS games on the N64 (StarCraft and Command & Conquer). Now, if it's a game like Freedom Fighters or Brothers in Arms, where you only have control over a few people including yourself and you only have to give simple commands... it works much better.

[DreadLord]

BF2 on PC with your stuff vs. UT 2007 on 360 ???

Nope, but UT2007 on PC vs UT2007 on 360??? PFFFT.

No I'm not a PC fanboy, I'll be buying a 360 and PS3 just as i bought an xbox and PS2. But the fact of the matter is, until consoles BECOME PC's they won't have comparable graphics.

Don't forget you're playing on TV's, which are mostly 640x480. And don't use the 360 can be hooked up to a monitor defense, because no one will and you damned well know that.

[CptStern]

... and, yet, turn-based strategy/combat like RPG combat and Advance Wars do well on consoles. Once again, I think it's the control scheme. RTS games really benefit from a keyboard & mouse combination. You need fast and accurate movement combined with a lot of buttons/hotkeys for various commands to get the full effect of an RTS with a lot of units and buildings. That's the way I remember it from playing RTS games on the N64 (StarCraft and Command & Conquer). Now, if it's a game like Freedom Fighters or Brothers in Arms, where you only have control over a few people including yourself and you only have to give simple commands... it works much better.

but that's my point ..it's simplified ...Brothers in Arms is a good example ...the multiplayer lends itself well to consoles but is dreadfully under powered as a pc mp game as most modern pc games accomodate 32 players or more

[Garfield_]

No one has answered my question about 28" CRT TV vs. 19" LCD monitor, which of these will bring the best quality in games, i dont care about the size just quality =)

[OCybrManO]

but that's my point ..it's simplifiedHey! Stop stealing my points!

The only difference is that I'm saying it's because of the physical limitations of the interface... and you seem to be saying it's because the developers have to dumb it down for the average gamer. That's why I gave examples of popular types of console games with a lot of the same kinds of depth and strategy as used in RTS games, just without the "real-time" aspect (you can't manage a lot of information/commands in real-time with just a controller). Then, there's always the case of that mech game, "Steel Battalion." It was $200, the controller it came with was massive and complex, and the gameplay was equally complex and unforgiving... yet it sold better than anyone expected. Things like that are why I think it's the controller's fault.

So, we agree that most games get simplified for consoles. We just disagree on the reasons.

[CptStern]

Hey! Stop stealing my points!

The only difference is that I'm saying it's because of the physical limitations of the interface... and you seem to be saying it's because the developers have to dumb it down for the average gamer. That's why I gave examples of popular types of console games with a lot of the same kinds of depth and strategy as used in RTS games, just without the "real-time" aspect (you can't manage a lot of information/commands in real-time with just a controller).


and I agreed with you ...and no I didnt steal your point, no point stealer am I ..you borrowed MY point ..oh borrower of points


Then, there's always the case of that mech game, "Steel Battalion." It was $200, the controller it came with was massive and complex, and the gameplay was equally complex and unforgiving... yet it sold better than anyone expected. Things like that are why I think it's the controller's fault.


ya but that game was more than likely bought by mostly hardcore gamers ...I mean what casual gamer would shell out $200 for a single game?

So, we agree that most games get simplified for consoles. We just disagree on the reasons.


great taste, less filling!!!

[Warbie]

like it or not console games are usually dumbed down versions of their pc counterparts

oh come on :)

You mean the very small no. of games that are ported from the pc to consoles. The vast majority of console titles (and virtualy every single one that is worth owning) never appear on the pc (unless they're emulated years later)

whereas you have to be a bit more sophisticated a gamer to play pc games

What absolute twoddle :) Having to download patches doesn't make anyone more sophisticated (it's just hassle)

[OCybrManO]

great taste, less filling!!!:eek: :x I just had a horrible mental image because of that. I wish there was a puking smilie.

[CptStern]

oh come on :)

You mean the very small no. of games that are ported from the pc to consoles. The vast majority of console titles (and virtualy every single one that is worth owning) never appear on the pc (unless they're emulated years later)

that is now the case but during this console cycle games started off as pc games to be ported as console games ...anyone remember the dreadful RTCW xbox version? that was dumbed down with a capital "D"



What absolute twoddle :)

now dont be taking that out of context ..I meant when updating, tweaking, and installing mods ..it requires more sophistication than just popping in a game disk and turning your console on



dont get me wrong consoles as I;ve stated before have their place ...but I prefer pc games because to me they are more in-depth than their console counterparts ...not just ports but rather whole genres

[CptStern]

:eek: :x I just had a horrible mental image because of that. I wish there was a puking smilie.


now, now, get your mind outta the gutter :E

[Gargantou]

Nope, but UT2007 on PC vs UT2007 on 360??? PFFFT.

No I'm not a PC fanboy, I'll be buying a 360 and PS3 just as i bought an xbox and PS2. But the fact of the matter is, until consoles BECOME PC's they won't have comparable graphics.

Don't forget you're playing on TV's, which are mostly 640x480. And don't use the 360 can be hooked up to a monitor defense, because no one will and you damned well know that.
Actually, with say the Dreamcast/PS2, they kicked the PCs ass graphic-wise for the first year they were released, the PC's advantage is the fact that it's upgradeable.
And also, do remember, consoles can do more than PCs with their spec, because consoles don't have say background utilities running, iirc the XB has a GF3 graphics card and a 700Mhz processor, and it can still make some beautiful games.
And about the TV res, that's the reason Microsoft(And Sony) are trying to encourage people to get HDTVs.
There is a HUGE difference between say a HDTV movie running on 1080i(1920x1080) and a DVD which runs at 480p(720x480).

[DreadLord]

Actually, with say the Dreamcast/PS2, they kicked the PCs ass graphic-wise for the first year they were released, the PC's advantage is the fact that it's upgradeable.
And also, do remember, consoles can do more than PCs with their spec, because consoles don't have say background utilities running, iirc the XB has a GF3 graphics card and a 700Mhz processor, and it can still make some beautiful games.
And about the TV res, that's the reason Microsoft(And Sony) are trying to encourage people to get HDTVs.
There is a HUGE difference between say a HDTV movie running on 1080i(1920x1080) and a DVD which runs at 480p(720x480).

I still don't believe that's true at all. The PS2 may have kicked your average PC's ass, but whats inside a console is always released for a PC first, I bought a PS2 in Florida on release day, and i can guarantee you the graphics were no better than what I had on PC at the time. Consoles are for children.

[Garfield_]

I still don't believe that's true at all. The PS2 may have kicked your average PC's ass, but whats inside a console is always released for a PC first, I bought a PS2 in Florida on release day, and i can guarantee you the graphics were no better than what I had on PC at the time. Consoles are for children.

Children ? that is the most stupid thing ive seen in this thread.
But you may be right, everyone playing video games have some childness left inside :)

[Icewolf717]

x360 video card = R500 from ATI
R520 will release for PC later this year , and R580 will release next year, as well as Geforce 8.
looks like PC will be pwn this next gen consoles very fast ( talking about the graphics )

well, for the people that can afford that shit

[Warbie]

It's silly comparing consoles and pcs spec for spec. Being a dedicated gaming machine, you get so much more out of your hardware with a console. My aging GC/PS2/Xbox are still matching the visuals i'm getting on my x800 xtpe.

And let's stop this 'console games are simple compared to pc games' rubbish.

Any gamer who wants to play the very best video games will end up with consoles and a reasonably up to date pc.

[DreadLord]

well, for the people that can afford that shit

Which is what we're discussing.

And yes, consoles are for children.

[destrukt]

and computers are for work only.

[Gargantou]

It's funny that RTSes actually started on the consoles.. what was that games name.. I think it was.. hmm.. Herzog Zwei?

[destrukt]

well, depends who you ask.

some people will say herzog, than dune ii on pc but others will say stonkers was before herzog.

i give full credit to westwood though, for making rts a big hit.

[Gargantou]

Yeah I guess, Herzog might've been the first but it was Westwood that made RTS the popular genre that it is today.:)

[Warbie]

And yes, consoles are for children.

Temperature rising. Vision blurring. Rage...taking...over...

*Takes deep breaths*

Rage...subsiding. Pulse...slowing. Anger fading.

[Gargantou]

Temperature rising. Vision blurring. Rage...taking...over...

*Takes deep breaths*

Rage...subsiding. Pulse...slowing. Anger fading.
*Gives Warbie a shot of Valium*
Everything's just fiiiine...:)

[ailevation]

:dozey: Just get both, enjoy all games. Sheeeit.

Should be arguing whether to get the Xbox 360,PS3, or Revolution

Or to get the 7800 or ATI's next card.

But, anyways... what's powering the console's graphics?

Face it, consoles are really becoming 'dumbed-downed PC's'

[Warbie]

Why do you think that?

I see nothing dumbed down about consoles and the games that appear on them (other than the very few obvious and unrepresentative examples Mr Stern picked up on) There are actually more engrossing console titles, that entertain on more levels, than there are on the pc (imo)

Everyone seems to skip by the fact that the pc caters for a very small variety of games (rts, mmo, fps) For all the other genres (adventure, sport, driving, platform, beatemup, arcade, party, puzzle, single player rpg etc etc) consoles pretty much have a monopoly.

Consoles also offer a far more social gaming experience (and no, playing pc games over comms doesn't count ;))

The pc certainly excels in what it does do, but there's so much else to this great hobby. I don't understand how any gamer can choose to miss out on so many great games.

[Axyon]

x360 video card = R500 from ATI
R520 will release for PC later this year , and R580 will release next year, as well as Geforce 8.
looks like PC will be pwn this next gen consoles very fast ( talking about the graphics )This is incorrect, actually. The x360 GPU is a custom set that easily surpasses the R500, and has recently seen rumours saying it may be more powerful than the R580 architecture. We'll just have to wait and see.

[ailevation]

I am talking about the technical aspects of things. The hardware and stuff.

Now, consoles are equally fun if not more fun than PC's. Consoles has a fair share of incredible titles. Of course both has its pro's and con's. Get both to eliminate that from yourself; best of both worlds!

[DreadLord]

Everyone seems to skip by the fact that the pc caters for a very small variety of games (rts, mmo, fps) For all the other genres (adventure, sport, driving, platform, beatemup, arcade, party, puzzle, single player rpg etc etc) consoles pretty much have a monopoly.

Wow, nice list you have there. Unfortunately, "beatemup, party, and platform" all fall under your other categories. And single player RPG's are better on PC IMO. I'll give you driving, as sterring etc.. with keyboard and mouse is terrible, and sport probably, although I prefer PC for it, but i see where a controller is handy. Arcade.. no, that's for PSP and DS thank you. And no, consoles don't have a monopoly, they simply control the children.

[Warbie]

Unfortunately, "beatemup, party, and platform" all fall under your other categories

eh? What categories? All of those are seperate genres. Of course, there is some cross-over in games - which is a good thing. (by party I mean titles like Samba De Amigo, DDR, Donkey Konga, Mario Party and worms etc. Platform is obvious, as are beatemups)

Also, arcade games on the PSP and DS? I think you'll find it's on the PS2 that 'arcade' games are flourishing (and on the DC before it)

I honestly didn't understand much of your post, especially the last sentence.

//edit

As for single player rpgs - it's been quite a while since there's been a decent single player rpg on the pc (Fallout, Baldurs Gate, Planescape etc were years ago) The ones there have been (KOTOR) were console titles first. Consoles, on the other hand, have had a great many decent rpgs released recently. Disgaea springs to mind, as does Tales of Symphonia, Jade Empire ... (the list goes on)

[OCybrManO]

Define "children." The median age (meaning there are equal numbers of people that fall on each side of that age) of a console gamer has been shown to be about 23 and rising... as the "gaming generation" gets older. Unless you define "child" as "hasn't had a mid-life crisis yet" you're misinformed.

[poseyjmac]

:dozey: Just get both, enjoy all games. Sheeeit.

Should be arguing whether to get the Xbox 360,PS3, or Revolution

Or to get the 7800 or ATI's next card.

But, anyways... what's powering the console's graphics?

Face it, consoles are really becoming 'dumbed-downed PC's'

dumbed-down? i think the term 'streamlined' fits better since theres really nothing dumb about consoles.

[DreadLord]

dumbed-down? i think the term 'streamlined' fits better since theres really nothing dumb about consoles.

Everything's dumb about consoles, and they are always dumbed down. Maybe not for the first three or four months after a consoles release, but after that they are dumbed down completely.

[poseyjmac]

Everything's dumb about consoles

right...chalk up another blind pc gaming fanboy to the list. the fact that your PC is godly also attributes to pc gaming fanboyitis, so its not all your fault.

[Warbie]

Everything's dumb about consoles, and they are always dumbed down. Maybe not for the first three or four months after a consoles release, but after that they are dumbed down completely.

That's quite possiby the most ridiculous post i've read on a video game forum (and that's including the official Bungie forums :))

What do you actually mean by 'dumbed down'? And what was that last sentence meant to mean?? :rolling:

[ailevation]

Dumbed-down as in, it has everything a PC would. But, it cannot utilize everything to the fullest potential. Yeah, a console have games that are well optimized for consoles. But look at all the things being implemented into console's these days. It's all 'dumbed-down'- such as storage, there's no complexities that you have to worry about with HD's in a console... it's real straightforward, plus no flexibility. As in PC's people are modding their shit, doing stuff differently.

Think of it as Utopian PC with one main role. Something like a MAC? A gaming-only MAC with no user-interface that allows you to change things around.

Think about it, console evolution would just become to be PC's.

This is ONLY stating about the technicals, not fun-factors or quality games or whatever social aspects.

Not only consoles are 'dumbed-downed' same goes to cell phones or PDA's and lotta other stuff. Concepts are being taken from PC's.

[Warbie]

Fair enough. I get the impression most people are calling the games dumbed down, though.

I agree that the pc is capable of everything a console can do. But all these creative and varied games/peripherals do not appear on the pc, they never have. In the context of gaming, consoles are realising what pcs have the potential to achieve, yet never quite do.

[Gargantou]

Dumbed-down as in, it has everything a PC would. But, it cannot utilize everything to the fullest potential. Yeah, a console have games that are well optimized for consoles. But look at all the things being implemented into console's these days. It's all 'dumbed-down'- such as storage, there's no complexities that you have to worry about with HD's in a console... it's real straightforward, plus no flexibility. As in PC's people are modding their shit, doing stuff differently.
You are aware that it's not that hard to get say Linux running on the PS2 if you've modded the console, right?
There're also quiet a few people doing homebrew PS2 games that you can play if you have it shipped, but yes I do agree that it's nowhere near as flexible as a Personal Computer.