Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: PC vs. 360
  • Subject: PC vs. 360
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: OmniosSpartan
aPC is infinetly more useful then a 360...


exactly

  • 02.27.2006 8:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Oh no, not this stupid debate about PC versus console. If you're smart, then get both when the price drops.

  • 02.27.2006 8:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TITAN_CRONUS
Here we go. First off, while the 360 is cheaper than a PC that would have relative performance, it doesnt have near the capabilities. (I hope someday that MS releases a web browser for the 360) Of course, on a console there are no viruses (so far), while on a PC there are thousands. (for Windows) Finally, consoles usually last at least 4 or 5 years before they become "obsolete" while if you buy a moderately good computer today, it will most likely be "obsolete" within a few years.

They both have their strengths and weaknesses, it is all really a matter of personal preference.


consoles go obsolete just as fast as computers do. the only difference is there are no upgrades for consoles. This is why games near the end of the xbox's life had to be toned down to run on the xbox. The xbox's hardware was so obsolete it could barely run the games with performance boosters (aka toning the game down).

In a short time the xbox 360's hardware will look like child's toys. just wait and see

as for the PS3... i don't think there is a single game for playstation 2 that I like. and i will be surprised if that isnt the case for the PS3... so imo the PS series is useless... you can go ahead and disagree but thats why i really dont care about PS3. it could be a monstrous super computer for 300 bucks... i still wouldnt buy it because it is useless

  • 02.27.2006 9:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

well there are upgrades for consoles, you just have to know what your doing. For instance modchips, ram upgrades, and even cpu upgrades. I did a ram upgrade on my xbox and i have never done any soldering job harder. Installing new ram on the xboxs mobo makes installing a dms4 in a ps2 look like a piece of cake....


but basically, yea there are no inteded upgrades. But i disagree about the consoles going obselete faster. You can upgrade a pc easily and make it run alot better.

  • 02.27.2006 9:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

most "upgrades" to consoles void your warranty and may have other legal consequences...

when i say that there are no upgrades for consoles i mean that you cant go out and buy a better video card and pop it in like you can for a pc.

  • 02.28.2006 12:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I believe I was misinterpreted. When I said consoles do not become obsolete as fast as PCs do, I wasnt referring to power, I was referring to the ability to play the newest games. I mean, if I would have bought a sweet gaming PC 4 years ago, it would not be able to handle the newer games very well, if at all. (BF2, FEAR) A console on the other hand, will usually have a lifespan of 5 years, and doesnt require video driver updates, virus protection, or memory upgrades. Now, while this means consoles are a lot less "hassle", it doesnt make them better. PCs, as said before, are infinitely more useful, but as I said, that freedom comes at a cost. In the end, I would say that if you only want to play games, get a console system, but if you want ot surf the web, do homework, or other functions, just stick with a PC.

  • 02.28.2006 4:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

well there are upgrades for consoles, you just have to know what your doing. For instance modchips, ram upgrades, and even cpu upgrades. I did a ram upgrade on my xbox and i have never done any soldering job harder. Installing new ram on the xboxs mobo makes installing a dms4 in a ps2 look like a piece of cake....

Yes it is easy to upgrade a xbox because a xbox is a computer in a fansey box. using pentuim 3 celeron and usbs for the controllors. Then the OS just a moded version of windows 2000. You want to know why it is so big there you go.

cheaper doesn't make it better. It's only good because ppl who can't aford high class computers and a good console.

PS3 does use a new type of rendering used in movies If you don't beleave me I will upload the offical sony video so you can watch it. It is about 2 hours long and it talks all about the features on the PS3 and how it is twice the power of a xbox 360.

usally the more it cost the better it will be. but as mentioned above it would have to be the right one. A 1000 dollar video card vrs the 500 dollar correct video will be better.

[Edited on 2/28/2006]

  • 02.28.2006 4:56 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

you werent misinterpreted. The reason the latest games run on older consoles is because they tone them down so that it will run at all. If you dont believe me, check this out.

Early development level of detail: link

final level of detail: link

the quality hasn't increased since early development of halo 2, it has decreased. They had to tone it down when they started to test it on the xbox.

  • 02.28.2006 1:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: TMH1988
Posted by: OmniosSpartan
yea to bad the 7800GTX 512mb SLI beat the hell outta it...



too bad the x1900xt 512mb in crossfire beats the hell out of 7800GTX 512's in SLI.....

Comparing the cards individually, the x1900xt is faster than the 7800GTX. The 7900GTX's are going to be faster than the x1900xt's, but are going to consume ridiculous amounts of power. In order to run 2 7900GTX's in SLI you will need a PSU about 700 watts(to power the whole system, not just the cards. They will eat up about 400 themseleves)


Meh, dual dual 7800GTXs > anything. And no, i didn't mistype dual dual, i do mean 4 7800GTXs.

  • 02.28.2006 1:15 PM PDT

http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/106004/Group/GroupHome.aspx
Join this Group now, help us make Halo Source.

Posted by: Spartan_113
you need air dude.............

Posted by: Heero139
you werent misinterpreted. The reason the latest games run on older consoles is because they tone them down so that it will run at all. If you dont believe me, check this out.

Early development level of detail: link

final level of detail: link

the quality hasn't increased since early development of halo 2, it has decreased. They had to tone it down when they started to test it on the xbox.


are you idiot, i mean it are you an idiot. you put a picture from a cutscence which never made final cut and your comparing it to a in game screenshot.

  • 02.28.2006 1:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

dual dual GTX' means 2 dual core cards. So thats only 2 cards with 4 cores total...

and no, 2 x1900xt's in crossfire can beat 2 dual core 7800GTX's in SLI.

  • 02.28.2006 1:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

im not an idiot

the cutscenes are rendered in real time using the same engine as the game itself. The fact that the graphics in the early development stages are better than the graphics in the final product makes me think that for some reason it couldnt have been as good as it was intended to be (aka the xbox wasnt good enough).

and FYI that cutscene is one of the first cutscenes in halo 2. The only thing is they changed it a tiny bit so that the bomb was in it for the final cut.

my point is, none of the content in halo 2 is pre-rendered, and so even the cutscenes will have the same graphical quality as the gameplay. So comparing screenshots from cutscenes and gameplay is perfectly legitimate.

  • 02.28.2006 3:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

360 online = annoying kid spamming the voice
pc online = annoying kid tries to type but unfortunatly doesnt know how to type
fast enough to spam

360=long wait in line during 2am in the morning for the release
pc= having people help you chosing which one is the newest computer during a resonable time

360 = not original
pc = original

360=stupid contollers not meant for playing FPS or TPS games
pc = made for FPS and TPS

360=no patch for any game
pc=patch once in a while

360=dumb name (dont know why they dont call it xbox 2)
pc =personal computer (makes sences)

360=only supports 360 controllers
pc=supports all type of controllers and joystick

360=worst graphics
pc=better graphics

And dont say "omg 360 pwnzorz pc bcuz liek it liek cost cheaper", we are talking about which one runs better not which one cost more. Also dont say
"omg liek 360 has better graphics than pc and so it liek prwnzorz pc lol lol lol rofl" of coures not, pc will always have better graphics because of the always devoloping nividia and radeon

  • 02.28.2006 4:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Im sorry, but did you just state that the 360 controllers arent good for FPS games? Wow, it is apparent that you have never played Call of Duty 2 for more than 10 seconds. Dont get me wrong, I prefer a keyboard anyday, but the 360 controller is amazing.

Oh, and by the way, lets see somebody using a keyboard beat somebody using an xbox controller in a good DOA or Tekken match.

PS- Also, when that guy said dual dual cards, he did mean 4. Dell announced a new deal will Nvidia to release a system with not two, but 4 cards.

[Edited on 2/28/2006]

  • 02.28.2006 4:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

no for the most part your wrong.

On an equally priced computer ($300), you could never run games and have them play that smoothly. 360 definately has better "bang for buck". Higher end pc's can run games better, but your going to be paying alot for that.


Also, only the first generation xbox 360 games are out. I think the xbox 360 is capable of handling up to 6 threads(not 100% sure), but anyway developers are only using 1 thread because of the demand to get the games out there. Just wait over the next year or 2, games will start looking alot better, run smoother, and be overall more impressive.

Also they called it the 360 because there are stupid people out there who will think xbox 2 is inferior to ps3.

Did you not make it through 1st grade? can you say quad instead of dual dual?

[Edited on 2/28/2006]

  • 02.28.2006 4:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Heero139
im not an idiot

the cutscenes are rendered in real time using the same engine as the game itself. The fact that the graphics in the early development stages are better than the graphics in the final product makes me think that for some reason it couldnt have been as good as it was intended to be (aka the xbox wasnt good enough).

and FYI that cutscene is one of the first cutscenes in halo 2. The only thing is they changed it a tiny bit so that the bomb was in it for the final cut.

my point is, none of the content in halo 2 is pre-rendered, and so even the cutscenes will have the same graphical quality as the gameplay. So comparing screenshots from cutscenes and gameplay is perfectly legitimate.


what you just said doesnt really make much sense...

If your saying that the cutscenes have better graphics than the actual gameplay, it kinda shows that they are pre-rendered. If they were rendered in real time using halo's engine, then there would be a drop in fps. You can even see some drops in fps when playing intense battles, so if they were to tone up the graphics for the cut scenes and let it render itself, then it probably would drop alot in fps. If they were pre-rendered its just like watching a video, so it doesnt really take much effort of the xbox to produce the image.

[Edited on 2/28/2006]

  • 02.28.2006 4:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TMH1988
what you just said doesnt really make much sense...

If your saying that the cutscenes have better graphics than the actual gameplay, it kinda shows that they are pre-rendered. If they were rendered in real time using halo's engine, then there would be a drop in fps. You can even see some drops in fps when playing intense battles, so if they were to tone up the graphics for the cut scenes and let it render itself, then it probably would drop alot in fps. If they were pre-rendered its just like watching a video, so it doesnt really take much effort of the xbox to produce the image.


sorry for writing it badly, but thats not what i meant at all. The cutscenes are rendered in real time, using the same graphics as the game itself, and you do see some dramatic frame rate drops in a few of the cutscenes. What i was saying is that the screenshots from early development look significantly better than the graphics from the final version. The screenshot i showed was from the original preview video. This cutscene is actually in halo 2. They changed the cutscene so that MC had a bomb with him when he jumped into space. In the preview movie he just jumps into space without the bomb. The graphics in the preview from over a year before the release are much better than the actual graphics in the game. If you look through the screenshot gallery, you will see that the graphics quality slowly declines as you progress in the dates of each screenshot. Basically, it seems that as they developed halo 2, they had to cut things from the graphics engine just so it would run on the xbox. The halo 2 engine should have a LOT more quality that cannot be used by the xbox.

now how does this relate to my original point? The xbox was outdated, and it couldnt run the newest games unless they made the games less graphically intensive than they could have been.

  • 03.01.2006 12:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Heyyo,

Arighty then. Here we go. ;)

Xbox 360 is cheaper in price cause they don't have much of a price markup. This is the marketing strategy for consoles. I'll give you a major example. Now, cause at my worksite, I can staff purchase an ATI Radeon x1800XT at HALF PRICE. No price markup. Usual price is about $720 CAD. I can get it through work for $350 or so. This is the main reason computers are soo damn expensive. Also note, in order to keep the Xbox at that price-range, they use cheaper components in them to save money eh?

Now, it's true they did hella tone down Halo2 for Xbox. Think about it, the vidcard is a dx8 one. They had dx9 graphics in the game, running in software mode. They had to make sacrifices. Why do ya think they were gonna make a Halo2Xbox360 version of H2? so the game could have the justified graphics they wanted it to have. Heck, just running H2 on the Xbox360 you can tell the difference in quality. They turned on I think 4xAA while runnig Xbox games on XB360.

Btw, the cpu for the Xbox360 is crippled compared to PC cpus. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050629-5054.html

But yes, seriously, you can't really expect a $300 console to match a $1000 computer. You also gotta remember, most people are running games on consoles run it at a resolution of 640x480 (well, it's not measure in pixels but scanlines, so roughly in pixels it would be about this resolution), while on PC most people run games at 800x600, or 1024x768. Almost doubling the image quality just there.

I could go on for hours... but I'm just gonna go make food n' spend my time better on my day off work. :P

  • 03.01.2006 11:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

it's an IBM PowerPC 3.2Ghz tri-core (not sure about the tri core) processor meaning that it gets more done with that 3.2 GHz IBM CPU than it would with a 3.2Ghz pentium 4. In fact at E3 when the Xbox 360 was being revealed, they saw that a demo was running but the console was off. They found out that behind the curtain there were two PowerMac G5s (specs unknown) running the demo. (source: MacAddict magazine)

  • 03.01.2006 1:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: S7Ev3
  • user homepage:

Posted by: ThE_MarD
But yes, seriously, you can't really expect a $300 console to match a $1000 computer. You also gotta remember, most people are running games on consoles run it at a resolution of 640x480 (well, it's not measure in pixels but scanlines, so roughly in pixels it would be about this resolution), while on PC most people run games at 800x600, or 1024x768. Almost doubling the image quality just there.

I could go on for hours... but I'm just gonna go make food n' spend my time better on my day off work. :P


ALL 360 games run in HD which is higher than 640x480, some run at a maximum of 1080i and most at a maximum of 720p, after looking through 67 xbox 360 games only 1 did not feature 720p

[Edited on 3/1/2006]

  • 03.01.2006 1:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I will just say that the best ati card (x1900 xtx) is not in any of the new systems and only for the pc. It also happens to be the best graphics cappable card in the entire world right now. many would like to disagree with this but go look at the features.

[Edited on 3/1/2006]

  • 03.01.2006 1:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

no, the 7900 GTX is currently the "best consumer" card right now. It will be released in a few months, but it is faster than the x1900xt. Nvidia has released benchmarks from it, and man its insane.

  • 03.01.2006 2:27 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3