Mass Effect - Massive Coverage

Two Worlds doeasn't look all that good on both platforms. As for Bioshock, from the comparison pics i saw it only looks slightly better on the PC, diffult to see on first glance. And again, without an 8800GTX it won't run as good as the console version. I run it on an 8800GTS and occasionaly it doesn't feel as smooth as i would have liked.
OK, you name a game which doesn't look better that is available on both.

Here is my comparison list - all of these look better on my PC than published screenshots or on-screen footage I've seen:
- Medal of Honor Airborne (X360, PS3)
- Virtua Tennis 3 (X360, PS3)
- Top Spin 2 (X360)
- Test Drive Unlimited (X360)
- Tiger Woods PGA Tour '08 (X360)
- Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix (X360)
- F.E.A.R. (X360, PS3)
- F.E.A.R. Extraction Point (X360, PS3)
- LEGO Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy (X360)

... that is all I can think of right now.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,951
I'll just say i highly doubt that..

Why? A $200 video card and dual core processor with 1.5 GB of RAM qualifies as mid-range nowadays. And those specs will completely blow an XBox 360 out of the water. Have you checked prices of components lately? They have come down tremendously in the last couple of years. I played Oblivion on an X1900XT a year and a half ago and the picture was noticeably better than the XBox 360 version. And now the X1900XT is mid range basically.

Rumors that Crysis will be ported to one of the next gen consoles still haven't died down. Also, while i don't want to accuse them of being ignorant, the truth of the matter is that they don't have much experience in programing for the console..

The rumors can say all that they want, but there won't be a port of Crysis without a complete overhaul of the game, like how Far Cry was overhauled and gimped to run on the original X-Box. On Gamespot there is an interview with one of the developers where he says specifically that both consoles are obsolete when it comes to RAM (which is apparently the big issue for that game).

I'd agree on loading times and level sizes, although games like Oblivion have shown that vast explorable areas can be done even on a console..

The exception that proves the rule. And even Oblivion had loading hitches, loading times to enter houses, and short view distance on the 360. Every other port that I have played from the 360 so far (Bioshock, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Splinter Cell: Double Agent) has had small cramped areas and/or frequent loading screens.

Sorry for being blunt but you may need an eye check. From what i could see they may not be amazing but they definitely aren't looking like shit..

Go back and look at some gameplay videos or screen shots, and instead of focusing on the faces of the characters, look at the backgrounds. I think that you will see that they look pretty bare and plain, and they look dead and uninteractive. Far Cry's environments are still more impressive and the game is three and a half years old now. (This could also be just mediocre art direction). I have noticed that console games do this a lot too -- i.e. put a bunch of horsepower into characters and character models and then paint the environment with a bunch of boring or crappy textures. It's easier to get away with this on a console because people sit back further from their TV's and play the games on lower resolution screens (even a 720 p screen is lower res than an average monitor now). That's another reason why they appear more powerful than they are. You can often tell if a game was made to be played on a TV just by how much detail is in the envrionments.

I find that to be true for the PC most of the times. If you don't have a high-end machine, forget about beautiful scenery and constant high frame rates and even with a machine costing a fortune, chances are it'll be brought to its knees on occasion thanks to "brilliant" coding. Whereas on a console you get fluid gameplay with perhaps only slight concessions in graphics..

Half-Life 2, Kotor 2, and Jade Empire didn't have fluid gameplay on the original X-Box. They were panned for having some pretty significant frame rate problems. Jade Empire also had really long loading times. I doubt that the experience there was much better than a low end PC at the time.

As far as a low-end PC user experience goes, you do need a lot of money for a high end video card, but not for a halfway decent processor or some memory. Especially nowadays. There still seem to be some things that low end PC's can do that consoles can't. As I said previously, a PC that was built a year before the XBox 360 came out can play Crysis. The XBox 360 can't. :)

And because on the PC as well you have to cater to the lowest common denominator since most people don't have the luck to call a high-end machine their own. And of course because of the diversity of hardware..

It's not luck :p

It probably has more to do with the fact that they were ports and as we all know in most cases ports are crap...

It's hard to say, but one trend is pretty clear. Games designed for the ground up for the PC are considerbly more impressive from a technological standpoint than PC games designed for the lowest common denominator. This has been a clear trend since port-itis started about four or five years ago. People say that the PC doesn't have the huge advantage that it used to have. I say that's wrong. The reason why it appears to be that way is because PC developers have all but abandoned PC exclusivity. When you get the incredibly rare PC game like Crysis, it's amazing. Imagine now if Epic, Valve, and id all tried to make ulta cutting edge games like that.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
622
Thaurin
'At the time the Xbox 360 was released ....... support limits they have set."
You’re joking, they are only considered power to previous consoles, they have never been considered as powerful as the most powerful PC atm.
Of course PC developers can focus, on various types of hardware such as Half-Life 2 scales down to at least Shader 1.5 if not lower as do many engines.

"Well, I just don't think it's such a big problem"
Lol, of course not you play consoles and apparently you don't care if you are constantly loading levels or any other crappy console design decisions.
Just because you don't mind them doesn't make them good or something acceptable for everyone. ;)

"Isn't that something that an action game..."
So I am correct, but because there are a small number of turn based RPGs and this is an RPG forum, it some how doesn't apply?
Then your suggesting because Turn Base exist that it somehow constitutes every has to use TB and if a RPG doesn't have TB, it's not a RPG and there for automatically categorized as a twitch by you?

Amazing. :)
Look I am glad you like consoles but your personal like dislikes don't change reality any more than mine or anyone else's.

" That's just crazy talk..."
Right, it must be, your opinion differs from accurate info. :)

"Per-pixel shading has been around since around Morrowind. The consoles can do that"
What you are talking about PS has been around longer than Morrowind, not to mention that's not even what he was referring too. :)

"It will be scaled down, if needed. So what? It will still look great.."
This is only because you apparently have seen "looking greatest, at any given current time", as apparently what ever is current on a console, is greatest to you.

"Unlikely."
Lol, right, you certainly seem to be an expert on the PC's abilities. :)

Thaurin
"But I feel many people here are just nitpicking and hating because they can and because they are ignorant. But what's new on the internet, hey?"
So you do know what we are saying is true.
Additionally now we are ignorant, even though we are providing verifiable examples and you are offering your factless opinions?
Opinions are for what flavor of ice cream you want, not in technical issue discussions.
No one is trying to take you consoles away from you, we are talking about technical issues.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,772
Dhruin
"This is exactly the crux of my argument..."
Well seems your right I did get dates wrong on KotOR, but I am still not sure on the development time table, I remember reading at time how Bioware ran out of time and Lucas stepped in to help do the cutscenes, so when I can find it I will post it.

However your crux only seems to apply to this instance, afaik, nor do I think your defending m$ or consoles, we are just talking about issues of the day. :)

"My main point is don't blame only Microsoft because..."
Nor do I, I call developers issues as I see them, but I do focus on m$, which I don't believe this makes either of us wrong.
I only have said your wrong when you say, " I only blame m$" since I focus on them since they are the biggest player whom is diverting billions of dollars from one division, to get a market share in another.
There simply is no bigger player in this game, atm, afaik. :)

"Have a look at Patrick Weekes' response to me on building "cheap" niche games"
Of course I saw it, I was the one whom suggested Bioware could Not make them for basically the same reason, before he posted.
Bioware is focusing on reaching larger audiences, to make enough money to survive as a large company now, not as a small or mid level developer.
It is part of mentality and process m$ did start to get as many titles as soon as possible, if they are the biggest fish, with the most financing power, they can control development directions and scheduling.
Companies need to be larger to meet the insane timeliness, it's a Catch 22. ;)

doctor_kaz
"I read in Forbes that they spent a whopping $20......."
Holy shitt! I had guessed it was single digit millions but now were talking 10s of millions!

"wonder if they average gamer realizes"
I seriously doubt most know, believe or care.
I hope that changes.

Estel
"What's with all the talk of PCs being this strong and consoles lacking power?"
Your joking right?
Were back to graphics?
The mere fact that GoW came out first on console and had to be graphically downgraded to work on the 360, humm I choose GoW PC.
Let’s not forget the whole issue of the thread here, we are talking about how diverted funding from PC games to fund inferior hardware games, which could easily look better on the PC.
If you don't know this or you’re pretending not to know this, then you’re not being honest. :)

"I'll just say i highly doubt that."
Lol, why am I not surprised.

"Oblivion have shown that vast explorable areas can be done even on a console"
Oh sure at the cost of graphics, AI quality for the PC owners, crappy resistive dialogue and crappy main plot, not like that's relevant to this thread. ;)

"Sorry for being blunt but you may need an eye check"
No, doctor_kaz is 100% correct which makes you 100% wrong.
The same issues every time, DX2, T3, Oblivion and now ME all use very low quality textures on things like the ground and have a terribly short Distance Draw.
If you do have a PC then you should know this since Everyone of These Game Were Improved on the PC by FANS, of course not ME as it's not released.

txa1265
"Bioshock and Two Worlds look better on PC than XBOX360."
Other excellent examples. :)

------------------
Lol, I am beginning to think Thaurin, is Estel.

Hell, it's clear the console version of Two Worlds can't run worth a crap on the console because it doesn't have the power to run, same as all the others listed.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,772
A PC that's older than the XBox 360 will be able to run the game, but the XBox 360 won't.

Uhm, no. That is, if a PC that's older than the Xbox 360 can run it, the Xbox 360 definitely will too. My PC's about as old or a little older than my Xbox 360 and I'd be extremely impressed if it could run Crysis on max. I'm absolutely positive it can't. Bioshock is hard to play on max on my PC. I'm wondering here what those impressive technical accomplishments are that Crysis promises that can only played on monster PC's. I have some serious doubts about them. Of course, Crysis is touted as being cutting-edge, so it will probably only run well on the newest PC hardware unless they can scale the engine down admirably.

There's also things like shorter loading times, better frame rates, physics, and level sizes.

My Xbox 360 has generally shorter loading times than anything I can throw at my PC. I don't know how it does that, possibly because a lot of the graphics stuff is already pre-loaded in memory before the game starts, or whatever. As for framerates and physics, the Xbox 360 has three pretty powerful cores running at 3.2Ghz each and are able to handle two thread at the same time. The machine has more juice in it than you'd think.

I have to wonder where this desire to put down a certain platform comes from. It's so pointless.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,915
Location
The Netherlands
You’re joking, they are only considered power to previous consoles, they have never been considered as powerful as the most powerful PC atm.

I'm through debating the power of PC's vs. consoles. It's not important, anyway. My Xbox 360 plays pretty games and that's that. My PC has tons of fun games on it and that's great, too. That's all that matters.

Lol, of course not you play consoles and apparently you don't care if you are constantly loading levels or any other crappy console design decisions.

Why are you being like this? I feel it's inappropriate on your part. Now I'm apparently don't care about "loading levels" and crappy design because I play games on a console? Oh, boy.

As a matter of fact, I have never had to wait very long for anything to load. Certainly not more than on my PC, which is a few years old admittedly. But again, what's the point in this talk? The machine is capable of providing fun and I just don't get people that are all up in arms about playing games on PC or whatever platform and at the same time hate the guts of another platform. I like both PC and consoles. They give me similar, but slightly different gameplay experiences. Neither is stupidly incapable.

But yeah, sure. If you want to be at the cutting-edge of graphics technology, you need to be on the PC side, I'll give you that. I like bleeding-edge graphics, but it's not required for a fun gaming experience. Hence I still enjoy games from ten years ago (that, honestly, are very beautiful sometimes).

So I am correct, but because there are a small number of turn based RPGs and this is an RPG forum, it some how doesn't apply?
Then your suggesting because Turn Base exist that it somehow constitutes every has to use TB and if a RPG doesn't have TB, it's not a RPG and there for automatically categorized as a twitch by you?

What? I don't follow. It seems you assume that the gamepad is clumsy with every action game. That's not true. Circle-strafing around enemies is as easy on a console than it is on a PC. I rather like FPS games with the gamepad, actually. Maybe that's because I'm not very ambitious or not "pro" enough. ;)

Look I am glad you like consoles but your personal like dislikes don't change reality any more than mine or anyone else's.

I'm not sure I bent reality all that much. Besides, I still like PC's more.

"Per-pixel shading has been around since around Morrowind. The consoles can do that"
What you are talking about PS has been around longer than Morrowind, not to mention that's not even what he was referring too. :)

I think the GeForce 3 was the first nVidia card that supported per-pixel programmable shaders. It came out in 2001. Morrowind was released in 2002. So that's pretty close. Anyway, he was talking about reflections in water, etc. right? Isn't that done with programmable shaders these days?

"It will be scaled down, if needed. So what? It will still look great.."
This is only because you apparently have seen "looking greatest, at any given current time", as apparently what ever is current on a console, is greatest to you.

:rolleyes:

you are offering your factless opinions?

Okay, prove me wrong on one count and I will grove on the ground and be your sex slave until 2010.

Or not. It's fucking kindergarden time in here now. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,915
Location
The Netherlands
I played Oblivion on an X1900XT a year and a half ago and the picture was noticeably better than the XBox 360 version.

Interestingly, I got curious after this and went on a search. I found this IGN article in which they discuss the differences of Oblivion on PC and Xbox 360 and come to the conclusion that they are strikingly similar.

Then again, the PC version can be modded and tweaked to look even better, of course. The point is, they both look pretty.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,915
Location
The Netherlands
I have to wonder where this desire to put down a certain platform comes from. It's so pointless.

I completely agree - I might cite many examples where the PC looks better than the consoles, but who cares? I love the Wii for the absolute fun of playing it in a social setting yet it has the worst graphics of the bunch!

Putting down the other gaming system is as old as Atari vs. Channel F ... and a lot older than that outside of gaming. It is the sad thing of trying to make oneself feel better by making someone else feel or look worse.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,951
I'm through debating the power of PC's vs. consoles. It's not important, anyway.

It's important to people who only own one platform. Especially if they have ponied up extra money for that platform to get a better experience and they find it going to utter shit, in large part because developers don't design games for it anymore. The lowest common denominator approach to game design has severely damaged, if not destroyed, PC gaming. I have been playing computer/PC games since the early '80's, and I can definitely say that the platform has never been as weak as it is now (unless you're a huge fan of MMORPG's). A lot of our discussion had been about technology, but it's an even bigger controls issue (i.e. M&K vs gamepad).

PC gaming used to be way, way better than it is now. It used to be that an amazing FPS like Crysis would come out once a year, but now they are incredibly rare. DirectX10 is a complete joke. Nobody besides CryTek is designing cutting edge engines for it. Everyone else is taking the Bioshock approach of designing for the XBox 360 and then adding some DX10 effects that you can't notice without a magnifying glass. By far the best shooters of 2006 were console exclusives. That was totally unheard of until recently. The PC RPG is as good as dead. Nobody except for Irrational (2K Boston -- whatever) gives a shit about designing an interface around the mouse and keyboard anymore. I'm just honestly sick and fucking tired of playing games that have layered menus or RPG's like Oblviion or Fable where it takes six mouse clicks or fifteen seconds of scrolling just to put on different armore or eat an apple. And I do think that technology is important, since the business is technology-driven. Advances in technology allow you to have experiences that you have never had before. Look forward to 2008 and 2009 and see if you can spot me any PC games coming down the pipe that move technology forward in any way. You won't find any. It used to be that spending extra money would get you a cutting edge experience. Now you can't even do that anymore.

So that's why people who play PC games and don't own consoles get upset about their games being shitted up for the lowest common denominator. We've seen Deus Ex become Invisible War. We've seen The Longest Journey become Dreamfall. We've seen one of the best developers the PC ever had, Bioware, basically abandon the platform. We've seen games like Thief: Deadly Shadows gimped so that they can run on the X-Box. We wanted Arx Fatalis 2, and we ended up getting Dark Messiah of Might and Magic instead. We wanted Fallout 3, and we got Brotherhood of Steel instead. We used to play games with interfaces designed for the mouse and keyboard, but now we play games with shitty interfaces like Kotor and Oblivion. I could come up with dozens and dozens of examples. The list goes on and on and on, but I think that you get the point. When something is designed for the lowest common denominator, the higher end loses out. This is just a basic rule, and it baffles me how so many people don't understand it. That's why this debate has meaning.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
622
I don't feel like arguing anymore. I know what the main issue of this thread is, i just wanted to comment on various remarks which made it sound like consoles are this low powered toys when in reality, whether you want it to believe or not, (exclusive) games are being put out on XBOX 360 or PS3 that put to shame most of what i've seen on the PC when it comes to presentation and at worst look slightly shabbier than the same game on a high-end PC that costs a fortune. I don't even disagree on the opinion that PCs have their advantages, mainly the vast amount of memory and disk drive space and that the attention consoles are getting is in some way negatively affecting games on the PC (e.g. cumbersome user interfaces, certain limitations in level design).

A big *LOL* to the one fellow who thinks "AI quality, crappy dialogue and crappy main plot" in Oblivion was due to the console. The culprit here was Bethesda and only Bethesda.

As for the lowest common denominator yadda-yadda-yadda, it is similarly a factor on the PC as well. If developers were to make games just for the few geeks with high-end machines, they would have gone bankrupt sooner or later.

Over and out.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
25
Location
Germany
I think you're (doctor_kaz) overreacting, but let's just keep it at that I disagree with you. I could mention some titles, but you'd just disagree with me.

P.S. For the record, I loved Dreamfall.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,915
Location
The Netherlands
When something is designed for the lowest common denominator, the higher end loses out. This is just a basic rule, and it baffles me how so many people don't understand it. That's why this debate has meaning.
Of course, this is a universalism. If Gutenberg had witnessed the utter tripe his printing press would eventually churn out he probably would have dumped the prototype off a cliff. The upside of lumpengaming is that companies like Bioware can now engage in prestigious, boundary-pushing and interesting new development rather than wallowing in the gutter of turn-based RPG creation. Huzzah!

I predict that in a decade from now the last few surviving PC gamers on earth will have been hunted down and exterminated by hordes of hooting, simian-like console gamers wielding human thighbones and copies of Halo 19 as clubs.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
150
That'd be the day. :) Quoth Hyperdrive:

Street Fighter II... Guys! Guys! These were all destroyed in the retro-gamer massacre back in 2054!

In fact, I think PC gaming has shot itself in the foot with its endless evolution and technological improvements. Game development has become so expensive and such a huge undertaking that big investments are needed to fund them (in ways that has been mentioned in this thread concerning Bioware). Small, independent game development lives, but the screaming hordes want the latest and shiniest. So, risk-taking has been largely dropped in favour of things that have proven themselves to be cost effective and profitable.

I hardly think think that the decline of the adventure game genre had anything to do with consoles. The same would stand for turn-based RPG's and interesting, non-recycled FPS games. As far as technology-pushing games go, I still see much quality for the PC platform on the horizon.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,915
Location
The Netherlands
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
257
Which doesn't necessarily mean that another department of LucasArts isn't working on a PC title. Big company. ;) I thought supply and demand was really the point of a free market, though.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,915
Location
The Netherlands
Which doesn't necessarily mean that another department of LucasArts isn't working on a PC title. Big company. ;)

I'm not focusing on LA. This a specific example of a general trend.

I thought supply and demand was really the point of a free market, though.

So did I.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
257
Do you honestly think that would translate into sales numbers?

Do you honestly think that the results of the poll don't justify the effort on a PC version? (I'm not talking about PC exclusive here)
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
257
Do you honestly think that the results of the poll don't justify the effort on a PC version? (I'm not talking about PC exclusive here)

Yes.

Force Unleashed is designed as a console action game, and would require quite a bit of effort to port and optimize and debug across the various configs ... and for ~10% of sales at the very most.

I'm not saying I wouldn't *want* it on PC (I did vote for PC ;) ), just that it is a hard business case to make.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,951
Yes.

Force Unleashed is designed as a console action game, and would require quite a bit of effort to port and optimize and debug across the various configs

More effort than porting it to Wii?

Yes.

... and for ~10% of sales at the very most.

How did you come up with that number?

After all, its starwars we're talking about here. Very popular franchise, you know?
I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of the sales would come from PC owners rushing to buy a console to play this game.

I'm not saying I wouldn't *want* it on PC (I did vote for PC ;) ), just that it is a hard business case to make.

When was the last time that LA published a PC exclusive? Jedi Academy? Fans are still making mods for this game. And LA doesn't have the Bioware excuse of waiting to get 'big'. It seems to me that a more rational explanation would be that it is their policy to artificially promote console hardware (another case of exclusive deals maybe?). Then in a few months (years) we might get to see Force Unleashed for the PC, complete with crappy console UI.

The situation about this game is even more puzzling, as it seems to take advantage of recent technological innovations that would greatly benefit from a high-end PC.

I was just browsing the game's fora and guess which is (by far) the most popular thread.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
257
Back
Top Bottom