|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Mass Effect - Massive Coverage

Default Mass Effect - Massive Coverage

September 20th, 2007, 03:23
Thaurin
"Lowest common denominator?"
I thought it was common knowledge that consoles were weaker PCs, of course if you have an old PC a console could be stronger.
The most important weakness come from lack of RAM, which has casused the worst problems so far, in this adventure of m$'s.
I think DX2 would be a good example, of the problem, what happens is there is such small zones that you are constantly have to load new areas, which effect RPG style games the most, due to the quests.

"Microsoft is evil!" Well, a big company is run by thousands of people and do not work like humans do."
Actually we are talking about policies, not the quality of employees or whether they follow good or evil gods.

" So you subscribe to the crowd that always wants the latest and greatest and have a recent $2000 gaming rig, do you?"
No, if however there are nice graphics in a game sure I do very much notice and visual advances in technology.
Just because I appreciate beauty doesn't mean story or gameplay are not just as important if not more.
I still remember the first time I saw things in games, just like first time I experienced a great quest or story.
Are you suggesting you don't appreciate beauty?
Could you say, watch the Akira Kurosawa movie Dreams
( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100998/ ) and see the scence in the cherry blossom orchid with out weeping at the beauty?
If so, too bad.

Additionally can you think of a RPG as in depth as say PT, is there an equlivant on the console?
Maybe consoles can handle heavy text branching, I am not sure since I don't own one, but I tend to think that this is another area of weakness and limitations.

Obviously the weakness of aiming and targeting, which since you seem experienced with PC and console should be blatantly obvious.

"Final Fantasy?"
We must be talking about two different things, as I don't see how Sony's exclusives have tried to undermine the PC industry.
They didn't take PC developers to make FF, that is a long lived series and has nothing to do with the PC industry, afaik.

Dhruin
"I think you're contradicting yourself."
Nah, not really, see above.
I am not talking about anything in perticular, but all things, yes graphics and visual splender do matter but not to the point of sacrficing overall game quality.
I don't think those words or thought have escaped my brain before, it's possible but I sure don't remember.

"Which RPG on the PC demonstrates gameplay improvements (*not* graphical improvements) that would not be possible on a console?"
Seriously?
Well almost anything that is related to aiming, targeting, strafing, physics, sound quality and visual quality.

I should be asking you to name something that can be done better on consoles.

Trust me, most of the names I have been called you can't translate in any language…they're not even real words as much as a succession of violent images.
Acleacius is offline

Acleacius

SasqWatch

#41

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,518

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 04:22
Originally Posted by Thaurin View Post
Lowest common denominator? What's that? You mean to say that a console is the lowest common denominator? That's kind of a limited way of looking at things, isn't it? It's like saying it's more difficult to be creative on a console. Besides, and I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, most of you people don't care about graphics as much as gameplay, right? It comes down to a choice: do you like playing games on your PC or on your console?
Originally Posted by Dhruin View Post
I think you're contradicting yourself. You agree the emphasis on the best graphics is bad — but you keep talking about crappy hardware, which - as far as I can see - is only relevant to graphics.

Which RPG on the PC demonstrates gameplay improvements (*not* graphical improvements) that would not be possible on a console?
Originally Posted by Dhruin View Post
Because of "crappy hardware"? Or because the genre doesn't fit with a gamepad and remote screen in the same way that beat-'em-ups aren't so good with a keyboard?

I don't have a console, have no intention of getting a console and wish they'd all go away and just let Troika get on with making Fallout 3. Back in reality, however, none of the problems I see with gaming have to do with crappy hardware.
So suddenly now the console is the equivalent of a gaming pc, which makes gaming pc's obsolete since consoles are so much cheaper Also no sense for Microsoft to sign exclusive deals since people are going to buy their superior platform anyway

You are talking about how gamepad controls is of minor consequence. Controls decide the way the user interacts with the game and hence determine gameplay.
This holds true for every genre. Even an FPS with unchallenging gameplay like Bioshock becomes very challenging indeed when you have to play it in the XBox.
No wonder the devs felt that permadeath would obviously be too much.

I cannot even begin to imagine what a nightmare it would be to play a somewhat complex RPG, say NWN, with gamepad controls.

Controls are only part of the issue, of course. As Acleacius pointed out console hardware becomes quickly outdated. I was recently watching a documentary on the development of "The Witcher" where the devs explained how they use the GPU for processes like calculation of water reflections that until recently used the CPU. The underlying reason being of course that they wanted to conserve precious CPU cycles for AI and other calculations needed for such a complex game. The XBox has only so much (not upgradable) RAM, 512K if I'm not mistaken.

Just imagine how any pc game with high system req will play in a console a year from now. G3? Even console development of G1 had to be abandoned due to the console limitations.

Would KotOR have larger areas, more challenging combat and more dialogue options if developed for the PC? What about Oblivion? Maybe that's the reason Beth had to sacrifice so many RPG aspects (the other reason being incompetence).

Last but not least when developing for the console you target a specific audience. If that audience prefer their games fast, easy and shiny, you are going to make such games. (To Patrick: there is no such thing as satisfying multiple groups).

But then again they say ignorance is bliss.

“Of all the journeys you will undertake in this life, uncovering the secrets you hide from yourself is the most dangerous voyage of all.” – Shyha Tuhlwin, Therish Philosopher
Lethal Weapon is offline

Lethal Weapon

Lethal Weapon's Avatar
Sentinel

#42

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 257

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 07:48
Originally Posted by Acleacius View Post
"Which RPG on the PC demonstrates gameplay improvements (*not* graphical improvements) that would not be possible on a console?"
Seriously?
Well almost anything that is related to aiming, targeting, strafing, physics, sound quality and visual quality.

I should be asking you to name something that can be done better on consoles.
No, because I am not arguing that consoles are better - I'm saying some of your assertions are misplaced.

Let's use your own example: PS:T. I assume you're not saying any current console doesn't have the power to do PS:T? The gamepad is an issue — I agree — but not tghe console's power.

As for strafing and aiming — you've got a different focus than I have. You are obviously more focused on action games. There's not a single reason in the world that dialogue is limited by the console's processing power; this is a matter of design choice.

@Lethal Weapon; you are misunderstanding the point of my posts. Longer response when I'm not at work.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#43

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,968

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 12:18
Dhruin
"Let's use your own example: PS:T. I assume you're not saying any current console doesn't have the power to do PS:T? The gamepad is an issue — I agree — but not tghe console's power."
No, my references are based on the fact at time of release, so that would mean in 1999 for PT and it maybe very much possible to work on the consoles at the time.

I wasn't sure since, I never hear people talking about large amounts of dialog in console games, maybe I should have posed it as a question, thanks.

On the other hand since this came up, wouldn't this then be another point of contention, would it suggest, due to poor/shorter development cycles of the console be another important aspect of diminishing the quality of games.

However every first and third person game uses some form of all those characteristics I listed including strafing, so that's a large majority of games.
Also as Lethal Weapon correctly pointed out many top down games would not work on consoles at least ones I am interested in like NWN series or PT.
It could maybe be bastardized to work on a console but thats sort of the point of this whole conversation.

So, once again I am wondering what games your referencing, what good or very good PC RPG game could run on a console at time of release?

I am drawing a blank, while I have mostly focused on the limited power issues, to me the everything except the software of the game is considered hardware as a PC gamer, so my mouse as should the controller issues be in question.
This includes PT as it seems like it could not be used well due to the controller problems but it's been awhile so maybe I am forgetting something.

Afaik, that covers at least 80%+ of games at time of release, if not more and this hasn't even begun to talk about or compare how depth of character and story are effected by consoles.

Until Bioware came along, not sure a single m$ game could be considered deep or an RPG, certainly not even many since, so it took a PC developer to give credence to m$ console.

I played KotOR, loved it and hated it, so much potential was sacrificed for the shitty development time table 18 months (iirc) and being a console game.
Not to mention being forced to wait 2 years to get the damn title, so m$ could manipulate people into buying a console.

Trust me, most of the names I have been called you can't translate in any language…they're not even real words as much as a succession of violent images.
Acleacius is offline

Acleacius

SasqWatch

#44

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,518

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 12:30
Originally Posted by Acleacius View Post
I thought it was common knowledge that consoles were weaker PCs, of course if you have an old PC a console could be stronger.
The most important weakness come from lack of RAM, which has casused the worst problems so far, in this adventure of m$'s.
Yeah, because PC technology keeps on evolving, while the specs on the consoles must by definition stay the same. That's also a plus, though. These machines are highly specialized and are in theory capable of producing a much more stable and fluent experience. At the time the Xbox 360 was released it could very well be considered a very powerful machine compared to PC's. In the meantime, PC developers cannot fully focus on the latest extreme cutting-edge hardware, because they have to the lowest common denominator of whatever system requirements and support limits they have set.

In any case, I think the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be able and sufficiently "next-gen" to last us for a while yet. Some of the higher-quality games out still surprise me and I can be a graphics whore at times. We can do in real time now what required pre-rendered cut-scenes in the past and still look convincing and cinematic. That's good enough for me.

I think DX2 would be a good example, of the problem, what happens is there is such small zones that you are constantly have to load new areas, which effect RPG style games the most, due to the quests.
Well, I just don't think it's such a big problem. There are titles out there for consoles that have wide expanses, open-ended gameplay and beautiful graphics and still run with good frame-rates. A one-year-old computer could get already into trouble, but not so with the latest consoles.

Of course I enjoy beauty. I mean, I (possibly like you) still remember this first time I dropped my jaw seeing Doom. Then Quake. Then Unreal. Morrowind with its fantastic water effects. I specifically bought a GeForce 3 for this. I anticipated the Doom 3 engine with great enthusiasm. BioShock set a new standard for water effects, I love that. But I don't see a revolution happening for PC in the near future that will leave consoles in the dust.

Additionally can you think of a RPG as in depth as say PT, is there an equlivant on the console?
Maybe consoles can handle heavy text branching, I am not sure since I don't own one, but I tend to think that this is another area of weakness and limitations.
There is nothing in Planescape: Torment that even last generation's consoles couldn't handle. I think it's just more a market thing. Such a game wouldn't really do well over in that pond, since it's much more action-oriented, unfortunately. They had a Baldur's Gate game that was basically a dungeon crawler action RPG. Still a very good one, though.

It's definitely not technical limitations holding such things back on console. It's also a shame that pure PC developers can't find a market on PC for that kind of turn-based RPG. I'm not sure that the consoles are to blame for that. It's just that people want shiny graphics (possible on consoles) and action (prevalent on consoles) in their modern games for whatever reason.

Obviously the weakness of aiming and targeting, which since you seem experienced with PC and console should be blatantly obvious.
Isn't that something that an action game would have more problems with than an RPG where you can supposedly pause the time or where combat is turn-based? Other than that, gamepads can be used for targeting just fine, but arguably it's a bit less accurate and slower than a mouse. But again, that's much more important with twitch games, which isn't really the topic here on an RPG forum, I'd say.

We must be talking about two different things, as I don't see how Sony's exclusives have tried to undermine the PC industry.
They didn't take PC developers to make FF, that is a long lived series and has nothing to do with the PC industry, afaik.
Well, not having FF on PC makes it less attractive a platform for JRPG's. But really, I don't think MS took Bioware just to hurt the PC market. That's just crazy talk. Also, having Bioware develop an exclusive does not mean they will stop developing for PC, at all. As I recall, Dragon Age is still a PC title, but you may speculate that it will be a simultaneous console release all you like.
Last edited by Thaurin; September 20th, 2007 at 12:50.
Thaurin is offline

Thaurin

SasqWatch

#45

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,447

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 13:16
Even an FPS with unchallenging gameplay like Bioshock becomes very challenging indeed when you have to play it in the XBox.
Not according to hosts of Xbox 360 owners who say the game was too easy. Of course, I thought it was challenging enough, but I'm not really a twitch player.

Gaming on a console is a different experience. Less of a hassle, comfortable on the couch in the living room, and with a different mind-set. It's just different, accept that. That doesn't mean a multi-platform release cannot successfully cater to both markets.

Originally Posted by Lethal Weapon View Post
I cannot even begin to imagine what a nightmare it would be to play a somewhat complex RPG, say NWN, with gamepad controls.
It would be not entirely impossible, but the interface would have to be streamlined for use on a console. I think you're underestimating what you can do with good UI design.

As Acleacius pointed out console hardware becomes quickly outdated.
As does PC hardware, at which point you need to upgrade, where game devs will continue to develop towards the original console spec to ensure your game experience will always be optimal. Besides, PC devs, like I said, will need to maximize their market and have their games work on lesser hardware, too. So they make their engines scalable, allowing release on whatever hardware, be it older PC or console. Problem solved.

I was recently watching a documentary on the development of "The Witcher" where the devs explained how they use the GPU for processes like calculation of water reflections that until recently used the CPU. The XBox has only so much (not upgradable) RAM, 512K if I'm not mistaken.
Per-pixel shading has been around since around Morrowind. The consoles can do that, and pretty well, too. You have to also remember that a console has less overhead from the OS and features that it does not need to handle. On top of that, with a known spec and a well-defined dev API, the hardware can be put to use much more efficiently than a PC. I don't know how they do it, but I haven't seen any problems caused by lack of memory.

Just imagine how any pc game with high system req will play in a console a year from now. G3? Even console development of G1 had to be abandoned due to the console limitations.
It will be scaled down, if needed. So what? It will still look great. And I really don't see a reason why Gothic couldn't have made it to Xbox. There are bigger and prettier games out for the platform.

Would KotOR have larger areas, more challenging combat and more dialogue options if developed for the PC? What about Oblivion? Maybe that's the reason Beth had to sacrifice so many RPG aspects (the other reason being incompetence).
Unlikely.

Last but not least when developing for the console you target a specific audience. If that audience prefer their games fast, easy and shiny, you are going to make such games.
Same for the PC, as has been noted by several saddened RPGWatch members. I don't really see a difference here, except that PC has history in a wider range of genres.

But, finally, how much hot hardware do you need for a fun, quality game? And why the hard feelings and feuds between different platforms, anyway? PS3 hates Xbox 360, Xbox 360 hates PS3 and PC hates them all. So useless. All can co-exist peacefully.
Thaurin is offline

Thaurin

SasqWatch

#46

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,447

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 13:20
Originally Posted by woges View Post
Isn't Dragon Age a PC exclusive though?
Nice question.


Besides: Here in Germany, the PC as a gaming platsform still has about 50 % (very roughly, because I don't remember the exact numbers anymore).

So, an exclusive title for ANY console affects German gamers much more than let's say american gamers, where the PC platform is nowadays only a fracture of what it once was.

THIS could also be used to publish exclusive titles for consoles to make more German gamers willing to abandon the PC platform - or buy a console as a second thing.

I heavily doubt that the making of such exclusicves is meant to have that effect, but it would fit very nicely, imho.

I don't know how it is in different country, but ANY exclusive is a little bit push more towards any console, and away from the PC.

(And vice versa, of course.)

“ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#47

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 16,037

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 13:33
Yes, the difference would be Bioware choosing to do multiplatform becasue they could/can not as a punishment, manipulation or tool to damage one or the other platform.

Trust me, most of the names I have been called you can't translate in any language…they're not even real words as much as a succession of violent images.
Acleacius is offline

Acleacius

SasqWatch

#48

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,518

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 13:53
Originally Posted by Acleacius View Post
Yes, the difference would be Bioware choosing to do multiplatform becasue they could/can not as a punishment, manipulation or tool to damage one or the other platform.
Ah well, this happens all the time with all the consoles, anyway. Because, yes, people will specifically buy a particular platform because exclusive game X is on it. So that necessarily hurts the other platforms.

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?
Thaurin is offline

Thaurin

SasqWatch

#49

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,447

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 13:57
I absolutely LOVE people ignoring my remarks !

But what's new on the internet ?

“ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#50

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 16,037

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 14:05
Originally Posted by Acleacius View Post
I played KotOR, loved it and hated it, so much potential was sacrificed for the shitty development time table 18 months (iirc) and being a console game.
Not to mention being forced to wait 2 years to get the damn title, so m$ could manipulate people into buying a console.
This is exactly the crux of my argument but I'm short on time, so I'll wrap it up with this post.

I'm not trying to support consoles - I couldn't care less. For Lethal Weapon's sake, my playlist is mostly Nethergate and Depths of Peril and some other indies, apart from some article commitments…my head isn't in the sand. I understand (unlike many people) that I can't expect the latest shiny paid for with mainstream sales while demanding a hardcore niche game. Hence, I play a fair bit of low-tech stuff that can operate in my preferred niche.

My argument is over inaccurate information and misplaced blame. KotOR was not made in 18 months and did not come out 2 years later. It was in development for around 4 years and the PC version was released ~2 months after the Xbox.

My main point is don't blame only Microsoft because developers want to pursue console money and don't absolve all the players who demand nothing but cutting edge graphics. Have a look at Patrick Weekes' response to me on building "cheap" niche games; BioWare's policy is to be cutting edge, which means they have to pursue sufficiently large sales (or get money from MS or whatever), which means no hardcore niche games — this is a choice they made and it isn't Microsoft's fault. That isn't to say MS hasn't screwed up all sorts of things but let's be honest about the market.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#51

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,968

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 15:46
Dhruin,

Why do you not just say "I don't like rpgs!!!!!" Quality standards of the moral company Bioware mean goods graphic. Why else make a game? Maybe you should just play board game if you don't like quality game. Sheeesh. Bioware dosen't make games to make money like the evil corparotion EA and M$, they are fans and love to make real good rpgs in quality of standards very high! I rest this case!

Unrestigered

Guest

#52

Posts: n/a

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 16:00
Was that sarcasm? I can't tell.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#53

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,968

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 16:16
Originally Posted by Dhruin View Post
Was that sarcasm? I can't tell.
(S)He rested 'this' case, so we'll never know.

But it is too late - you've been outed.

Despited being mega-editor-dude for RPGDot and now the Watch, we now know you don't like RPG's … for shame …

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#54

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,512

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 16:46
I would bet money that Mass Effect will come out on the PC, but it will probably be two years from now (but there's hope that it could be just one — since that's what Gears of War is doing).

I certainly can't blame Bioware for accepting massive cash payments from Microsoft to keep their games exclusives or timed exclusives. I read in Forbes that they spent a whopping $20 MM to make Lost Planet an exclusive — not exactly a killer app. And they are rumored to have spent an incredible $40 MM for exclusive GTA IV downloadable content. Think about that for a minute. 40 million dollars, not for an exclusive game, but for exclusive microtransactions. If they are spending that much money on a middling game and microtransactions, I can only imagine how much they are giving a leading developer like Bioware for a potential A+ title. That's one of the reasons why they are losing so much money. I wonder if they average gamer realizes how much the "console gaming is cheaper than PC gaming" is a result of Microsoft and Sony subsidizing the business by losing massive amounts of money on it.

I keep wondering when this gravy train is going to end though, because some day, Microsoft is going to get sick of losing a billion dollars per year on their console that also has pretty much destroyed PC gaming and has caused gamers to not buy their new operating system.

On the subject of the game — I wasn't really on board until recently. The role-playing system looks very cool, and combat looks like it's going to fun, instead of a liability (which seems to be a problem with almost all RPG's nowadays). I think that the dialog for the main character is cheesy though (and not charmingly so). The universe just doesn't look intriguing either. The characters, the outfits, the races, etc. Sort of cheeseball generic sci-fi and unintentionally funny, sort of like the 1980 Flash Gordon movie. It has a Star Wars vibe, but it lacks the dirty, lived-in future look and feel that made Star Wars such a great universe. Kind of the opposite of Jade Empire, I guess (which had a great universe and fiction, but so-so gameplay). I do tip my hat to them for creating something new though. In this day and age of one generic game or sequel after another, almost anything new is welcome. The RPG genre is horribly devoid of ambition and innovation nowadays. I remember playing games like System Shock 2, Baldurs Gate 2, and Deus Ex for the first time, thinking that whoever made those games was deeply inspired and intended to make the greatest game of all time. I haven't had that feeling while playing an RPG in a long, long time.
Last edited by doctor_kaz; September 20th, 2007 at 17:27.
doctor_kaz is offline

doctor_kaz

Keeper of the Watch

#55

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 622

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 17:38
Originally Posted by Dhruin View Post
Was that sarcasm? I can't tell.
We don't not have this "Sacrasm" in my country, so not it is. But facts is facts and Bioware makes THE BEST RPGS and are not evil facist company. Them have the HIGHEST standarads of the qualities, and if you don't not like Bioware RPGS then you must not like RPGS at all!!! That is logics and that is what my country has lots and more and invented!!! Unlike fat AMericans who tazer helpless smart students who ask questions and go to war with helpless peaceful country oil. Bioware is moral and wants to make you happy and smile and are not USA!!! And they are known for very high challenge and inteligent game with the best combats. Why more could you want please? Maybe a game with 1946 graphix made and too much numbers by money hungry evil EA zoinist like stupid nethe\argates? That is no game, I even looked at it! Is this Foxnews? Dhruin Orielly?

Unrestigered

Guest

#56

Posts: n/a

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 18:15
Originally Posted by Acleacius View Post
Thaurin
"Lowest common denominator?"
I thought it was common knowledge that consoles were weaker PCs, of course if you have an old PC a console could be stronger.
What's with all the talk of PCs being this strong and consoles lacking power? Name me one game on the PC that looks better than Gears of War, or Uncharted: Drake's Fortune for the PS3, or to stay on topic, name me one RPG that have better looks than Mass Effect. Crysis seems to be the first game to challenge the top console games in terms of visual splendor. What the consoles lack in pure horsepower they make up in optimization. Yes, in about two years' time we'll have the situation where pretty much everything on the PC will at least match the best on the consoles but not now.

p.s.
I don't own a console myself.
Estel is offline

Estel

Watcher

#57

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 25

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 19:20
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
What's with all the talk of PCs being this strong and consoles lacking power? Name me one game on the PC that looks better than Gears of War, or Uncharted: Drake's Fortune for the PS3..
And as long as we're allowed to include games coming soon, Gears of War for the PC will look better probably on a mid-range PC than it did for the XBox 360. Crysis looks better graphically and is far more impressive technologically in a number of ways. The developers have said that the consoles don't have the horsepower to run the game, and that's why they aren't even trying to make a console version yet. Seeing as how the XBox 360 is only two years old and the PS3 is only one year old, I think that's saying a lot. A PC that's older than the XBox 360 will be able to run the game, but the XBox 360 won't.

I think that it's important to point out that there's also more to technology than just graphics. There's also things like shorter loading times, better frame rates, physics, and level sizes. I guarantee you won't find a shooter on either console like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or an RTS like Supreme Commander. Console games almost always trade level size or frame rates for graphics. The GTA games seem to get around the problem by randomly generating content over a tiny gameplay area surrounding the player. If you look at Mass Effect, the characters look amazing, but the environments are extremely bare and if you ask me, they look like shit. And from the one map that I saw, I'll bet that they are very small too (like Jade Empire). I would choose the graphics in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or over Mass Effect, thanks to the lighting and the amazing environments.

Other than that, the reason that you can't find a lot of PC games that look better than the best console game nowadays is because the best technology developers in the business (e.g. Epic, id, Valve) have completely abandoned the PC as a platform for exclusive development. A game has to be built from the ground up to completely take advantage of the platform's strengths. It's the same reason why cross-platform ports to the PS3 look no better than their XBox360 counterparts, but Heavenly Sword looks incredible. Simply put, you can't take an average looking game, add some shader effects, and make it an amazing looking game.

On the first X-Box, games that came out on both platforms usually looked better on the PC, but only slightly better. But games that came out on the PC first like Mafia and Unreal 2 looked like complete crap on the X-Box, because the console couldn't handle the technology. Even the first Max Payne, which was released before the X-Box even came out, looked better on the PC than on either console.
doctor_kaz is offline

doctor_kaz

Keeper of the Watch

#58

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 622

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 20:38
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Yes, in about two years' time we'll have the situation where pretty much everything on the PC will at least match the best on the consoles but not now.
Bioshock and Two Worlds look better on PC than XBOX360.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#59

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,512

Default 

September 20th, 2007, 22:15
Originally Posted by doctor_kaz View Post
And as long as we're allowed to include games coming soon, Gears of War for the PC will look better probably on a mid-range PC than it did for the XBox 360.
I'll just say i highly doubt that.

Originally Posted by doctor_kaz View Post
Crysis looks better graphically and is far more impressive technologically in a number of ways. The developers have said that the consoles don't have the horsepower to run the game, and that's why they aren't even trying to make a console version yet. Seeing as how the XBox 360 is only two years old and the PS3 is only one year old, I think that's saying a lot.
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.

Originally Posted by doctor_kaz View Post
I think that it's important to point out that there's also more to technology than just graphics. There's also things like shorter loading times, better frame rates, physics, and level sizes.
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. As for whether Stalker or any other specific game would be doable, i don't know. You don't either.

Originally Posted by doctor_kaz View Post
If you look at Mass Effect, the characters look amazing, but the environments are extremely bare and if you ask me, they look like shit.
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.

Originally Posted by doctor_kaz View Post
Console games almost always trade […] frame rates for graphics.
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.

Originally Posted by doctor_kaz View Post
Other than that, the reason that you can't find a lot of PC games that look better than the best console game nowadays is because the best technology developers in the business (e.g. Epic, id, Valve) have completely abandoned the PC as a platform for exclusive development.
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.

Originally Posted by doctor_kaz View Post
games that came out on the PC first like Mafia and Unreal 2 looked like complete crap on the X-Box, because the console couldn't handle the technology.
It probably has more to do with the fact that they were ports and as we all know in most cases ports are crap.

Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
Bioshock and Two Worlds look better on PC than XBOX360.
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.
Estel is offline

Estel

Watcher

#60

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 25
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Mass Effect - Massive Coverage
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:35.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch