Xbox and PC, Difference In Graphics

[Decent_xVICIOUSx]

umm crackin are u high?? dumbed down for 360 uhh not how much memoery does an average 360 hold compare that to a computer and the processing power and the "buzz" isnt always right and thats a lot of SHI7 360 performing better than a PC i guess the lack off air up ther in colorado is getin to you

[Van_Crackin]

"http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/huxley/news.html?sid=6167645&cpage=2#comments"

"I don't know why developers all want to publish their game on the 360. Why not just keep it to the PC? All it leads to is a dumbed down version of the game, for people who use the PC."

Notice I did say BUZZ, and yes, it could be wrong.
But the fact is that the single player campaign is just for the xbox, NOT the PC, if that is not watered down than what do YOU sir, call it?
As for as graphically, you are going to have to get a pretty good PC to do what the 360 can do for several hundred, even a thousand, less dollars.
I can give up a few particles of concrete flying around in my game for a couple hundred less.

Oh, and learn some manners, I never attacked you. Also, learn how to type/spell.

Good day.

[Decent_xVICIOUSx]

look at bf2? and compare the two exactly my point exactly its a mmofps single player is just boring and ai is limited but multi is not so camper xbox bf2 and pc bf2 and i call single player a waste or space it just takes away from the multi player mode

[Van_Crackin]

First of all, you have not played the game, none of us have. I doubt you can be making judgement calls about enemy AI yet. Besides, it's a good developer, give them some credit.
And I would think that MOST gamers would welcome a singleplayer. I know the first time i boot up a game I go to single player so I do not look like a copmlete noob when out trading slugs with the big boys.
And isn't BF2 from an entirely different developer, using an entirely diifferent engine, and not classified in the MMO genre?
Apples to oranges, my friend. You might as well have said "Compare PC Halo with Xbox Halo." (I have. Xbox Halo, in my opinion, is where it is at. But that does not matter.)
Apples to oranges.

[TheVermin23]

1. if you're buying a computer off the shelf to play games on, you have no idea what you are doing.

2. it does not cost as much as you guys say for a good gaming computer. and don't go to alienware, you'll be ripped off. and if you continue to argue costs, try involving the cost of your HD TV to play your consoles at the quality thier meant to be. if you know what you're doing, you can get a cutting edge computer for like $500.
HOWEVER, i'll argue against myself for a moment: if you're going to buy a computer FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of playing videogames, i think you might be overcharged. it is a multifunctional device.

3. the only games that might be dumbed down for the PC will only be the ones available also for consoles. but since you can modify just about anything on PC, it'll only be dumbed down to console level graphics until someone makes the driver update for it.
As if PC's haven't taken enough of a step up with graphics cards, they're taking a huge leap with directx10, in which no consoles will not take advantage of. On top of that, AMD will have an octuple(8) processor by the end of the year or early next year.

4. on FFXI, in jueno, a central town to most of it's citizens, there was about 300+ people in your general radius at any given moment. the way to deal with that is to only visibly load a certain amount of people in your proximity. the same has been done for many MMO's, and will undoubtely be done in huxley. on PC, they usual leave you with the option to adjust the draw distance of not only the map, but the amount of characters you see. so as you upgrade, so does your game. all in all, it's a toss up for the designers, quantity or quality. also note- that was a game that had different graphics for each system it was on, yet everyone played together.

5. Grim_Reaper, you argued against yourself.
you argue against paying alot of money for a top the line unit, then you say you'll just buy another rehash of the same product you already have, but with slight modifications. after buying an xbox elite, why would you even play your normal 360? add the price of the 360 plus the amount you will pay for elite and you'll have more than the cost of a very good gaming computer.

6. controller vs keyboard/mouse.
people can say they find controller more comfortable, but that bares no significance to the fact that a keyboard and mouse has you outmaneuvered.


7. apples and oranges.
no. with FPS's, it's more like consoles are marveled by their new grapes while PC players are sipping fine wine.
but seriously, as long as console players hold tightly to your controller, the FPS genre can never truly improve to the rank of PC fps's.

[Nytemare37]

Vermin, its not based on performance only, its based on how you enjoy the game. And to a high school student, building a nice PC is difficult because not everyones got 800-1000$ sitting waiting to be spent, and don't tell me thats not how much it takes, because it is and I know it because I play both PC and console. And don't say one is better than the other because even if its true, its on how you enjoy it, as I've said numerous times. Maybe you don't play to have fun, but many of us do enjoy playing on our consoles.

A console to console player fight is more even than a PC to PC player fight, and thus making a console more balanced. Not saying console is better, just that you can play against people of the same standards where game play is all based on player skill, not on the player's system. Take Planetside for instance (MMOFPS), a player with an FPS (Frames per second) of 10 in a fire fight, will die to a player who gets 250 FPS. I played PS and did duels against my friends, they had top of the line PC's where I had a decent. We fought, my 30 FPS against their 300+ FPS, I lost 9/10 times. Had it been a console it would have been more fair. Nevertheless, I enjoy playing PC games because of the keyboard and mouse, but I can simply plug those into my 360 now. One thing PC has that console doesn't is Alt+Tab though And that is the computer god. And there is no rank of PC FPS', its the same game with a different options menu. The ONLY things PC has on a console is look sensitivity and more buttons to push. Sensitivity can be altered by a generic look speed, as was done in some games, and more buttons can be changed by a USB keyboard. And why do you guys bother arguing over which one is better, you'll never be playing against or even with each other, you'll just be trading guns in town, thats it. So have fun looking at each other because that's all you're going to do.

[TheVermin23]

as a matter of graphics and control, PC IS better. that's factual.
whether you find it more comfortable or fun still says nothing about who would win in a vs match.

planet side is a horrible example, btw. besides those few diehard fans, the game flopped for the reasons you stated. i just hope huxley will succeed where planetside has failed. btw, you should check the system requirements on a game before you play it.

the control of a game dictates the dynamics of gameplay. Wii games are very very very simplistic, but it's because of its different way of controlling it that makes it something more.
with more ability in an FPS, more options are created; certain tactics are deemed obsolete; certain tactics once deemed suicidal now seem possible; etc etc. the whole game is evolved.
if i'm being shot from behind, i can jump in the air, do a 180, shoot the person in the head, 180 back around to land and keep moving in the direction i was going. and i mean like a regular gravity jump. not a halo jump.


but i digress. If you have your own way of having fun, more power to you. if a kid says that it's fun to stare at a spinning wheel or a flickering flame, then that's up to him. but i don't really need to argue the point of controller vs keyboard/mouse, really, because if huxley doesn't pit us against eachother, then my point is proven.

[Van_Crackin]

Originally Posted by TheVermin23

if i'm being shot from behind, i can jump in the air, do a 180, shoot the person in the head, 180 back around to land and keep moving in the direction i was going. and i mean like a regular gravity jump. not a halo jump.

Yes, doesn't that added sense of lack of gravity add just so much flavor to gameplay? Quick draw vermin, the high horse wrangler! But seriously:

1. Many gamers buy computers off the shelves because they still live with their parents. Or their PARENTS buy it for them. Think about it for a second, the majority of gamers are kids in high school and college. Most of those kids don't know how to build a computer. Majority of college kids can't even afford a computer unless their parents buy it for them. And I doubt that most parents will take the time to BUILD a machine for their college kids, or trust their HIGH schoolers to build one. So, what do they buy these computers off the shelf for?
Gaming.

2. Costs: For the 99.9% of us that can't build a computer from scratch and need a bit of help, a top of the line computer will NOT cost 500$. Be real here. For top of the line, it can easily be double that figure, especially if you want to exceed the Xbox 360. And for your HDTV arguement. Pretty much everyone is going to NEED one soon- the TV companies have announced they will be broadcasting in hi def, and discontinuing everything else. You don't NEED a high end computer to do your e-mail. Unless you want to watch public access all day, you'll need an HDTV.

3. " the only games that might be dumbed down for the PC will only be the ones available also for consoles. " - Like Huxley? This is a Huxley forum, right?

"they're taking a huge leap with directx10, in which no consoles will take advantage of." Requires Windows vista, that alone costs upwards of 200$ depending on what version you buy. AND about dx10, I will just refer you to a post in the IGN boards here:

"Its bull****. I'm a PC enthusiast, but even its obvious to any gammer that game developers determine the game, not the engine. I've see the numbers in Crysis, they push a lot of polys, so does the 360. Using normal mapping and relief mapping (not yet used) you can make any PC game look close or as good on the 360 and PS3.

Look at Gears of War, that game pushes half the polys as Oblivion, looks twice as good. God of War looks insane on what is the cheapest, crappiest piece of hardware ever created - the PS2, and so do many other games.

Its all Bull****, Crytek can say all they want, all they know how to do is build overly demanding engines with low scalability. UT2007 will be close to as good looking and run smoothly on a $10 junkyard PC whereas crysis will make high end SLI systems crash to its knees. Look at Half life 2, it ran fan on crap systems and looked just as good. Crytek always makes an insanely powerful engine, but the engine always outpaces the game, you can make a game look as good as Crysis with half the demanded polygons using good artists.

Its easy - More and better artists + normal mapping = makes up for lower polygons. Crytek is a small development firm, so their games will push raw polygons to look good. I don't care, i have a monster PC, but anything about a game "too powerful for consoles" is flat out crap. All DX10 does is reduce the strain on the CPU FSB and move it to the pixel processors during down time."

Now, back to Vermin:
"AMD will have an octuple(8) processor by the end of the year or early next year." I do not need an 80 core processor, which until now has only been used by the GOVERNMENT for the information they are pushing. I do not think many games in the near future will make full use of that overload. And if many do, the next generation of consoles will be just asround the bend. And, how much do you think that will cost? Should only run a couple bucks, seeing as you can get a top of the line computer for 500$.

4. You may have me here. But I really don't need to see all 200 players on my screen running around like crazy chickens bein shot at.

5. Grim_Reaper wasn't saying he would buy the elite. Realistically I do not think many people will. He was just saying that consoles have started the upgrading process this generation, who knows about tomorrow?

6. Mouse and keyboard vs. controller: Guess what? You can buy a USB mouse and keyboard for your xbox and plug 'em in if you want. Hell. BY THE TIME HUXLEY IS OUT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO USE A KEYBOARD ON THE CONSOLE. Hasn't microsoft stated xbox will be able to do that already? (Tangent) My little brother has the Wii, it is fun to an extent. Like 3 games. the rest have terrible controls, ESPECIALLY the FPSs. Glad I got the 360. You are right, control is important. But I think the Huxley devs know that.

7. We've used the fruit ana.logy enough. But here goes: At the end, it does not matter who is sipping wine or eating grapes or anything. Conclusion: Both Huxleys are fruit from the same tree, and the apple NEVER falls far from the tree.
Those of you saying that the 360 and PC versions are going to have radical differences graphically are mistaken. Besides the addition of a single player campaign (which I appreciate), they will be pretty much the exact same.
At the heart of it, this is a stupid geeky arguement about PC vs. Console. The console guys know the computer is better, and the computer guys know the consoles are catching up, fast.
But this is not what this topic is about, it's REALLY about Huxley.
Crackin out.

[TheVermin23]

1. True. And even when kids want a console, they're parents only supply them with one, which leads on to the "well, the one that i got is better than yours".
But it still doesn't argue against what i said.

2. True that not everyone can put together thier own computer for a price of around $500.
But is still doesn't argue against what i said.

2(part2!!) i have a computer for many reasons. Music creation/storage, graphic design, Movie editing, research, Emulators and roms, etc etc. btw, all of which i was doing while playing FFXI windowed, but i digress.

2- no wait, uh, 3. yeah.
"might" was a key word there. anyways, whats your point?

3(again?).
there's talks about how they're gonna make directx10 compatable with XP, for obvious reasons.
if i bought a new rig (which i intend on doing, it's long overdue), it would come with whichever OS i wanted, and i'd only be paying a small tiny fraction of what it would cost retail.

4. ok

5.he niether said he was nor wasn't. but it was a hypothetical implication.

6. just because the hardware is there, does not mean that the software is there to back it up. in other words, it is very possible, and has already occured, that regardless of the keyboard and mouse the game is still not programed to accept it in such a way that PC's do; more *Censored Word**Censored Word**Censored Word**Censored Word*og scrolling rather than free movement. believe me i do want a fully compatible mouse and keyboard for a console. that'd be awesome. in turn, the fps genre for console will take a big step up if that happens, and i will want to join in.

7. if anything, i think the graphical difference will be somewhat like comparing certain games from Genesis vs SNES- if you wanna notice, fine, be picky. but PC has the ability to improve it in time. but who cares. i'd turn down any graphics to any game after i've seen everything anyways. in fact i'd rather have bad huxley be mediocre graphics if it meant more of everything else was put into the game.

but graphicly, no matter how fast consoles catch up, they can only trot in the same footsteps already made by PC.

8(omg a new number). for me it's not a general issue of 'PC's or console: which is better'. i'm a gamer. if there's a good game, i want to play it. but if it's a decision of a good game, or a game that poorly simulates good games i played 8 years ago, then i have to pick the former. in that instance, i was talking about tribes and halo.


and please, no need for mockery ^_^, but i see you excused yourself by explaining that you were 'Crackin out'.

[Van_Crackin]

Hey, no making fun of the sign off. It's hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillarious!

1. You said that stupid people buy CPUs off the shelf. I awas just trying to point out that many don't have a choice. The devs know this.
2. Well, there are the .1 percent that can make a computer, let's make Huxley about them, right? The arguement was that for a cheaper price you can get amazing graphics on a console, where as one has to be prepared to spend much more on gaming computer. A good price for a gaming medium should not mean the customer has to know how to build a computer. The devs know this, so naturally they will want shelf computers to run this. It would be financially dangerous not to.

(Part ii) What's your point? A cheap mac can do all of that. Coupled with a console and it can still be cheaper than a top of the line computer. And I will not have to buy a new computer for the fancy new games, as long as it runs other softwares that don't tax my system heavily-such as music and video editing, research, ect. ect.

3. My point was that it could be possible for the CP Huxley to be dumbed down to meet the requirements of the Xbox, so it should not be discounted. As for as Dx10, my main point was more that it does little for graphical improvement, and not that it costs. Which, if you want to guy buy a computer with windows vista on it now, be my guest.

4. Cool.

5. I think most people would take his statement as a reference to the inter-generation upgradability of consoles that is starting to develop. That was my arguement anyway.

6. It would be extremely easy to release such software for free over some sort of download service...Xbox live, anyone? It's only a matter of time until games like Huxley provide that support. Although it is true that the controller will never fully be replaced with the keyboard, I'm fine with that. I like the feeling of a controller in my hand. I like the social interaction a console or two each with 4 controllers can bring between friends. Duplicating that on a computer is nearly impossible.

7. So we agree, the graphical differences will be minute. In some cases, better than the xbox on certain computers, worse on others. In the end it is the game that matters. Due to the UT engine's scalability we will see a range on all platforms. The good thing about owning a powerful console is that I can count on my settings to be in the higher zones of that scalability.

8. Consoles are catching up, and eventually they will be even. But being even means that consoles will evolve into full fledge computers with a primary focus on social gaming. But then again, if I wanted to own a computer, i would buy one. So hopefully the differences are still pronounced.

Crackin' out.

[TheVermin23]

Regardless of anything, i'm glad this 'conversation' was not reduce to a "WTF U SUCK WE RULE" status.

1. Nah, i said they don't know what they're doing. Just like all the parents that go to toys r us around christmas and ask what's the hottest game. They really don't know what they're buying.

2. If lowering and/or limiting the graphical potential of a game so that it can be possible to play cross-platform, then PLEASE so be it. i'm all for unity. someone might say, "they what about everything you were arguing about this whole time?". there are factual differences, and i was merely stating them.

ii. point being, email isn't all i do on computer. it's an all-in-one device for me. and the PC games i like aren't on mac, they're on PC. games on mac are nearly non-existant.


3. This is me, reading about Windows Vista, and having to have it just to use directx10:



I'd like directx10 to not be restricted to vista, in which i hear they're trying to change. i really hope.

4. awesome.

5. Upgrading parts? cool. Buying the same system over again with some changed parts? not cool.
oh hey look-


oh and whats this?



but yeah. generally this kind of thing hasn't gone too well.

6. The games are only able to use the keyboard and mouse if the developers of the games allow it. it's always been possible. if they find it more balanced to leave us segregated, then that's thier choice.

ii. i feel really comfortable using the controller with only one hand. let's fight. i'm gonna win because i'm more comfortable.

iii. LAN parties and PC bangs (slang for a place with a bunch of computers with pay-by-hour rates). 5 dollars for 3 hours lasts longer than most arcades.

at places like these, the playing field is completely evened out. hardware, software, connection. at some places, you can order a pizza from your computer, and they deliver right to you. it's also the same kind of places that one girl in the Philippines got shot, for fragging the same guy over and over again. as well as some guy in korea (or was it china) that dropped dead for not eating or sleeping, just playing non-stop for days. not that any of that is something to brag about.

also, it's pretty lame to split screen anything but co-op. if you do it so every player can see all the action, that's lame because they're screen-watchers; and it sucks to have not only your view portioned, buy your RAM as well. but then you could always just each have your own screens, but then you have to lug around something heavy to your friends house and just equate yourself to the LAN party-goers.

one more thing---- it kinda sucks when you're better than your friends. either console or PC could be EXTREMELY AWESOME if you do have a local friend that is actually really good, too, though. anyways, internet play is the way to go.

7. Indubitably.

8. really, i want all the customization that PC's can offer, but on a console. i'm rooting for it all the way. but it's not good for business. independent developers are making Goldeneye: source, Perfect Dark: source, and Portal; and if not for a computer to fool around with, it would not have been possible. i can play GTA: San andreas multiplayer as bender from futurama, online with 100 or more trigger happy people, while driving a back to the future Delorean. i could take pictures of my friends and put thier faces onto Sims versions of them, and even make all thier outfits. I could walk into some town in Final fantasy online and hear Loreena McKennitt playing instead of the normal music, or have Burly Brawl from matrix playing as my fighting music, or the bards could play dragonforce solo's instead of some ballad that raises my hit ratio or something.

imo, Social gaming will be accomplished when you can make your own identity out of your character. a digital representation of ones self. MMO's thrive on that, but i don't think picking face, hair, eyes, wieght, etc should be limited to that genre.
did you mean social gaming as in -meeting in person? that's a Wii. the other consoles are going towards being online to play against people.


*insert sign off here*

[CarnaGe]

as usually this "kind" of topics cross over to a PC vs X360 war, it's sad to see. I am a 360 player, but im not going to say anything regarding this whole situation. just please, for the good of the community, BEHAVE

[Van_Crackin]

1. Tomato tomatah.

2. Agreed.

3. Vista sucks. Agreed.

4. Wowzers.

5. The Sega CD and 32x (which I owned) were terrible. And one can conclude that in that time period, consoles were not ready for that change. But today, Consoles are evolving. And not just with the Xbox elite. A detatchable hard-drive, internet browers, IM, non-gaming software us beginning to see itself inbedded in consoles.

ii) Why fight? My point was that I like the feel a contoller has. I like the expeirance of sitting on my couch in my living room and turning on the TV for some crazy GoW co-op with my buddy than sitting alone at my computer. That's just personal preferance.

iii) I know about lan parties. And in my world, paying to play video games with my friends doesn't make sense when I don't have to leave my house. Yes, split screen can suck but nowadays on Xbox live on MANY games you can bring guests along. I can get past a tinier screen when I am fragging people with my buddies.
Occassionally we bring along TVs if we want to have a lan party. But realistically, most houses have 2 sets at least nowadays so we can easily do 4 on 4.

8. I agree. Oh, and on xbox 360 yoou can hook an IPOD or MP3 player in and listen to your tunes. Microsoft required that all games have a custom soundtrack. Just another step.
But I meant social gaming as a way to bring families and friends closer together. There is something nice about a couple people relaxed on the couch, cheering their buddy on as he avenges their deaths and frags the entire other team with a combination of skill/luck. What is nicer is going out to the backyard afterwards for some hamburgers and cigars.
The Wii IS the best console for this, but it doesn't seem to have the games to back it up. But I disagree with your view of the Xbox gearing soley for online play- you can bring your friends with you online now on the same console.
Crackin' out.

[zeekgenateer]

Originally Posted by CarnaGe

as usually this "kind" of topics cross over to a PC vs X360 war, it's sad to see. I am a 360 player, but im not going to say anything regarding this whole situation. just please, for the good of the community, BEHAVE

I'll be watching this topic and hope things won't spill out into an all out brawl. Both consoles and PCs have their upsides and downsides and it's one's tastes and preferences that dictate which one he/she likes better. For me the functionality I get out of a computer greatly outweighs the fact that a console is somewhat cheaper. Also I can choose if I want linux (GO LINUX) or Vista (dirty M$) to be on my PC, and I'll probably do a dual boot, with linux as my main and Vista as my go to for gaming.

[Kcirreda]

Oh dont forget DDR3 RAM comes out sometime, I forgot when but I know its by summer of 08. Also in defence of the PC, I am a Junior in HS, last i upgraded was in 04 and I currently run games like BF2 & Quake 4 on med/high settings. Right now I plan to upgrade Summer of 08, spend about $1500 of my own money a