Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: This is off topic but, I really want to know what this forum thinks.
  • Subject: This is off topic but, I really want to know what this forum thinks.
Subject: This is off topic but, I really want to know what this forum thinks.

Halo 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuE3cl9wSV8&feature=g-all-u &context=G2ab6328FAAAAAAAABAA

I'm really, really sad about this news. Any opinions?


P.S

Don't need to post anything here about this being off topic. It is, and I know it is. Just report the post if you feel the need. Ty.

  • 04.10.2012 9:32 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: Ben2974
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuE3cl9wSV8&feature=g-all-u &context=G2ab6328FAAAAAAAABAA

I'm really, really sad about this news. Any opinions?


P.S

Don't need to post anything here about this being off topic. It is, and I know it is. Just report the post if you feel the need. Ty.



Technically this is already being discussed in another thread in this same forum, but I think it's better if we shift the discussion here.

Clearly the multiplayer of Halo 4 is just call of duty now with hints of Halo: Reach, virtually no traces of the good'ol days of Halo. It's interesting though, in the video they said Microsoft is trying to reclaim the #1 spot on Xbox Live with Halo again and to do that, they're trying to copy the #1 game, which is CoD. But I feel by doing that, it's going to have the opposite effect. If Microsoft really wants Halo to be #1 again, they should go back to the roots of Halo. That doesn't mean just bringing back old weapons, but rather going back to a Halo 2/Halo 3 style gameplay.

I think that if Microsoft were to release a Halo 3 remake and Halo 4 at the same time, the Halo 3 remake would have more players in the long run. Microsoft has forgotten what made Halo so great...

The only hope for Halo 4 is its campaign. Halo 4 still has a chance to become like Mass Effect where it has a very strong campaign, but a very weak multiplayer.

  • 04.10.2012 9:49 PM PDT

Halo 3


Posted by: General Heed

Posted by: Ben2974
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuE3cl9wSV8&feature=g-all-u &context=G2ab6328FAAAAAAAABAA

I'm really, really sad about this news. Any opinions?


P.S

Don't need to post anything here about this being off topic. It is, and I know it is. Just report the post if you feel the need. Ty.



Technically this is already being discussed in another thread in this same forum, but I think it's better if we shift the discussion here.

Clearly the multiplayer of Halo 4 is just call of duty now with hints of Halo: Reach, virtually no traces of the good'ol days of Halo. It's interesting though, in the video they said Microsoft is trying to reclaim the #1 spot on Xbox Live with Halo again and to do that, they're trying to copy the #1 game, which is CoD. But I feel by doing that, it's going to have the opposite effect. If Microsoft really wants Halo to be #1 again, they should go back to the roots of Halo. That doesn't mean just bringing back old weapons, but rather going back to a Halo 2/Halo 3 style gameplay.

I think that if Microsoft were to release a Halo 3 remake and Halo 4 at the same time, the Halo 3 remake would have more players in the long run. Microsoft has forgotten what made Halo so great...

The only hope for Halo 4 is its campaign. Halo 4 still has a chance to become like Mass Effect where it has a very strong campaign, but a very weak multiplayer.


Yeah I said this in the video:

People criticize the Halo Community for wanting to keep the "Halo feel" with the next sequels, and laugh at them for not accepting "change." Is it really any better for the name of Halo to COPY another franchises' elements and call it their own? In my opinion, i'd rather have Halo follow the initiatives that Call of Duty has always taken since 2007 and have the next Halos just have slight changes with every release.

But even so, me being the fan I am, i'll most likely be buying the game anyway :/

  • 04.11.2012 8:22 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Holy crap. Why does every dumb console kid think that customizable loadouts are "copying Call of Duty?"

I'm gonna say this once. I'll say it loud and clear. And if anyone decides to skip it, I'll re-quote it until it gets through their thick console kiddie skulls: Nothing Call of Duty has done is unique to the genre. Therefore, saying that a game "copies" CoD is a massive display of ignorance. These guys on IGN are stupid and don't know crap about gaming for saying it, and the same can be said for anyone that echoes their sentiments on the matter.

  • 04.11.2012 3:35 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: DusK
Holy crap. Why does every dumb console kid think that customizable loadouts are "copying Call of Duty?"

I'm gonna say this once. I'll say it loud and clear. And if anyone decides to skip it, I'll re-quote it until it gets through their thick console kiddie skulls: Nothing Call of Duty has done is unique to the genre. Therefore, saying that a game "copies" CoD is a massive display of ignorance. These guys on IGN are stupid and don't know crap about gaming for saying it, and the same can be said for anyone that echoes their sentiments on the matter.


Nobody here ever said that customizable loadouts are copying Call of Duty. I don't know where you got that from unless you're talking about the people in the video.

Even if Call of Duty wasn't the first game to have everything it has right now, it doesn't mean you can't copy it. Based on all the available information of Halo 4, the game is "headed" in the same direction as Call of Duty.

Besides, it's only natural that game developers look at what the number one games have and use that for ideas. Since Call of Duty is currently the number one game on Xbox Live, lots of new shooter games will share some similarities to Call of Duty. Crysis 2 and the console port of Crysis 1 have obviously taken stuff from Call of Duty, specifically the control scheme.

  • 04.11.2012 5:08 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: Ben2974

Posted by: General Heed

Posted by: Ben2974
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuE3cl9wSV8&feature=g-all-u &context=G2ab6328FAAAAAAAABAA

I'm really, really sad about this news. Any opinions?


P.S

Don't need to post anything here about this being off topic. It is, and I know it is. Just report the post if you feel the need. Ty.



Technically this is already being discussed in another thread in this same forum, but I think it's better if we shift the discussion here.

Clearly the multiplayer of Halo 4 is just call of duty now with hints of Halo: Reach, virtually no traces of the good'ol days of Halo. It's interesting though, in the video they said Microsoft is trying to reclaim the #1 spot on Xbox Live with Halo again and to do that, they're trying to copy the #1 game, which is CoD. But I feel by doing that, it's going to have the opposite effect. If Microsoft really wants Halo to be #1 again, they should go back to the roots of Halo. That doesn't mean just bringing back old weapons, but rather going back to a Halo 2/Halo 3 style gameplay.

I think that if Microsoft were to release a Halo 3 remake and Halo 4 at the same time, the Halo 3 remake would have more players in the long run. Microsoft has forgotten what made Halo so great...

The only hope for Halo 4 is its campaign. Halo 4 still has a chance to become like Mass Effect where it has a very strong campaign, but a very weak multiplayer.


Yeah I said this in the video:

People criticize the Halo Community for wanting to keep the "Halo feel" with the next sequels, and laugh at them for not accepting "change." Is it really any better for the name of Halo to COPY another franchises' elements and call it their own? In my opinion, i'd rather have Halo follow the initiatives that Call of Duty has always taken since 2007 and have the next Halos just have slight changes with every release.

But even so, me being the fan I am, i'll most likely be buying the game anyway :/


I'll definitely buy Halo 4 as well, but at this point it's mainly for the story. Microsoft is counting on the fanbase to buy Halo 4 no matter what.

However, if Halo 4 dissapoints, it'll continue to reduce my interest in the Halo series like Halo: Reach did. Halo: Reach happened to be the first Halo game where I stopped buying DLC. I couldn't stand the multiplayer of Reach anymore. But for Halo 2 & Halo 3, I bought all the map packs.

It's true the community will criticize Microsoft if they don't improve anything. However, Microsoft needs to find a balance between "Halo feel" and "change". They need to maintain what made Halo great, while adding new features. Bungie succeeded in maintaining that balance with Halo 3. They kept the same old "Halo feel" while adding new features like Forge and Theater.

The problem with Halo following Call of Duty's direction is that Halo loses what made it "Halo" in the first place. It will lose what sets it apart from Call of Duty and other shooters. A lot of shooters today are all converging into one simple style of FPS game. Halo was notable because it's different than your regular FPS game.

  • 04.11.2012 5:14 PM PDT


Posted by: General Heed

Posted by: Ben2974

Posted by: General Heed

Posted by: Ben2974
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuE3cl9wSV8&feature=g-all-u &context=G2ab6328FAAAAAAAABAA

I'm really, really sad about this news. Any opinions?


P.S

Don't need to post anything here about this being off topic. It is, and I know it is. Just report the post if you feel the need. Ty.



Technically this is already being discussed in another thread in this same forum, but I think it's better if we shift the discussion here.

Clearly the multiplayer of Halo 4 is just call of duty now with hints of Halo: Reach, virtually no traces of the good'ol days of Halo. It's interesting though, in the video they said Microsoft is trying to reclaim the #1 spot on Xbox Live with Halo again and to do that, they're trying to copy the #1 game, which is CoD. But I feel by doing that, it's going to have the opposite effect. If Microsoft really wants Halo to be #1 again, they should go back to the roots of Halo. That doesn't mean just bringing back old weapons, but rather going back to a Halo 2/Halo 3 style gameplay.

I think that if Microsoft were to release a Halo 3 remake and Halo 4 at the same time, the Halo 3 remake would have more players in the long run. Microsoft has forgotten what made Halo so great...

The only hope for Halo 4 is its campaign. Halo 4 still has a chance to become like Mass Effect where it has a very strong campaign, but a very weak multiplayer.


Yeah I said this in the video:

People criticize the Halo Community for wanting to keep the "Halo feel" with the next sequels, and laugh at them for not accepting "change." Is it really any better for the name of Halo to COPY another franchises' elements and call it their own? In my opinion, i'd rather have Halo follow the initiatives that Call of Duty has always taken since 2007 and have the next Halos just have slight changes with every release.

But even so, me being the fan I am, i'll most likely be buying the game anyway :/


I'll definitely buy Halo 4 as well, but at this point it's mainly for the story. Microsoft is counting on the fanbase to buy Halo 4 no matter what.

However, if Halo 4 dissapoints, it'll continue to reduce my interest in the Halo series like Halo: Reach did. Halo: Reach happened to be the first Halo game where I stopped buying DLC. I couldn't stand the multiplayer of Reach anymore. But for Halo 2 & Halo 3, I bought all the map packs.

It's true the community will criticize Microsoft if they don't improve anything. However, Microsoft needs to find a balance between "Halo feel" and "change". They need to maintain what made Halo great, while adding new features. Bungie succeeded in maintaining that balance with Halo 3. They kept the same old "Halo feel" while adding new features like Forge and Theater.

The problem with Halo following Call of Duty's direction is that Halo loses what made it "Halo" in the first place. It will lose what sets it apart from Call of Duty and other shooters. A lot of shooters today are all converging into one simple style of FPS game. Halo was notable because it's different than your regular FPS game.


I totally agree with you, except for the Halo Reach part, I think that game was great (sure not as great as the first 3 Halo). Sure it was a kind of radical change because of the customizable loadout and all the armor abilities and yeah it did lose some of the Classic Halo look. That's just my opinion.

[Edited on 04.11.2012 6:14 PM PDT]

  • 04.11.2012 6:06 PM PDT

Halo 3

General Heed, your two responses practically cover everything, lol.

Your dilemma really is the same as mine. I purchased Halo Reach on day one thinking it was gonna be the next hit for me; I thought i'd be sitting down on my chair for another 3 years playing almost every day, having a good time each match (or campaign/custom game/etc). The change in Reach is so radical that I couldn't stand playing the game anymore. In April of 2011, I stopped playing, literally. In fact, I haven't had gold membership in a long time. It is just personal opinion, but I just could not stand the armor abilities like armor lock. And sorry but to me, having a sprint just yells out Call of Duty to me (and the whole "lets make this game really fast paced like the others"), and I hate that (and now that it's a supposedly default ability in H4, i'm really bummed out).

Halos 1-3 all had that medium-paced action that really struck me as fantastic play. That died in Reach as every match just fell apart and was so imbalanced and chaotic . . . and i'm pretty sure the same will ensue with Halo 4.



  • 04.11.2012 6:07 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

The information has been pretty disappointing so far. It sounds an awful lot like they're carrying on down the path of Reach's multiplayer design rather than realising that it was flawed and backing up a bit.

Bungie may have dropped the ball on Reach's multiplayer but I'll give them respect for choosing not to include game changing unlocks, as it seems Halo 4 may include. I play FPS games because they're about raw skill, not gear, class or random chance. I play RPGs for that sort of thing. Having a game full of unlocks and 'perks', in my view, runs the risk of turning it into a glorified version of rock, paper, scissors or the system ends up being nullified because everybody ends up rocking the same cookie cutter loadout.

Having said all of that, I'll be eagerly awaiting further information and clarifications.

[Edited on 04.11.2012 6:52 PM PDT]

  • 04.11.2012 6:51 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: Ben2974
General Heed, your two responses practically cover everything, lol.

Your dilemma really is the same as mine. I purchased Halo Reach on day one thinking it was gonna be the next hit for me; I thought i'd be sitting down on my chair for another 3 years playing almost every day, having a good time each match (or campaign/custom game/etc). The change in Reach is so radical that I couldn't stand playing the game anymore. In April of 2011, I stopped playing, literally. In fact, I haven't had gold membership in a long time. It is just personal opinion, but I just could not stand the armor abilities like armor lock. And sorry but to me, having a sprint just yells out Call of Duty to me (and the whole "lets make this game really fast paced like the others"), and I hate that (and now that it's a supposedly default ability in H4, i'm really bummed out).

Halos 1-3 all had that medium-paced action that really struck me as fantastic play. That died in Reach as every match just fell apart and was so imbalanced and chaotic . . . and i'm pretty sure the same will ensue with Halo 4.





The same happened with me, although I didn't stop playing Xbox. I simply went back to playing Halo 3. In fact, a lot of my friends are amazed that after almost 5 years, I still enjoy playing the Halo 3 campaign. Now I admit, I do enjoy playing CoD, especially Modern Warfare 2. MW3 for some reason, felt like Halo: Reach to me and I didn't really play it much anymore.. Anyways, I play both games because each game has something that makes it special. But now that Halo 4 and most FPS games are becoming the same, I don't get excited about new FPS games anymore.

The campaign modes are really the only things that interest me now. And based on the Halo 4 soundtrack sample, the campaign literally sounds epic. However, I've learned from Halo: Reach that an epic soundtrack does not necessarily equal an epic campaign. Even the Reach campaign didn't have the same epic effect that previous Halo games had.

I liked previous Halo games because their campaigns were "epic". The scale of things was huge! In Halo 3, there was that mission where you get to battle 2 scarabs and multiple ground and air vehicles! On that same mission there was a dogfight between Hornets and Banshees with anti-air weapons on the ground. Few missions in Halo: Reach can match the epic scale of things from previous games. I know Bungie wanted a deeper story in Reach, but I feel they kind of failed. A series that does manage to pull of epic scale with deep story is Mass Effect. Perhaps the new Halo series could have a great story.

  • 04.11.2012 8:30 PM PDT

Halo 3

One more nasty news update for Halo 4 might just make me lose all the hope I have left.

  • 04.18.2012 9:02 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: Ben2974
One more nasty news update for Halo 4 might just make me lose all the hope I have left.


Spartan Ops does sound interesting...wait... I've said that before for Spec Ops and Black Ops from Call of Duty...

I never liked loadouts in Halo: Reach. I don't believe Halo was ever meant to have loadouts. Halo 1 - 3 had it right in terms of multiplayer. No need to change what has worked for 10 years. It baffles me why Armor Abilities in general were brought back. The Halo: Reach forums used to be filled with complaints about armor abilities, not just armor lock. They should've brought back equipment from Halo 3.

It also seems Halo 4's multiplayer is more about balance rather than pure unadulterated fun. Remember Halo from the good old days when people weren't too concerned with balance issues? People just wanted to have fun in Halo and blast each other away. But starting with Halo: Reach, balance became a more serious issue for the game developers and now in Halo 4, it's clear that balance was at the top of their list and you're no longer going to have the fun we used to have in Halo.


This is kind of off topic, but I want some opinions about a certain topic I've been debating about with other people. Since PC gamers are usually experts with computer hardware, I figured you guys would be the best to ask.

So my question is, do you think the Original Xbox is comporable to the Wii in terms of overall processing and graphics power? Would the original Xbox be able to theoretically run Wii games without having to sacrifice graphics or anything like that? The Original Xbox does have a slightly higher clock speed with similar ammounts of RAM. As for the GPU, not much is known about the Wii's GPU except that it's not capable of Anti-Aliasing or HD Resolutions. The original Xbox on the other hand is capable of Anti-Aliasing and resolutions up to 1080i.

So what do you guys think? Is the Original Xbox comparable or even better than the Wii in terms of processing and graphics power?

  • 04.18.2012 9:20 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: General Heed
So what do you guys think? Is the Original Xbox comparable or even better than the Wii in terms of processing and graphics power?

Xbox's CPU: 733MHz Pentium III
Xbox's GPU: 233MHz nVidia NV2A
Xbox's RAM: 64 MB shared

Wii's CPU: 729MHz ATI Broadway
Wii's GPU: 243MHz ATI Hollywood
Wii's RAM: 88 MB main memory (24 MB "internal" 1T-SRAM integrated into graphics package, 64 MB "external" GDDR3 SDRAM), 3 MB embedded GPU texture memory and framebuffer

Yeah, the answer to your question is a pretty easy "no". What little it lags behind the Xbox in terms of processing, it more than makes up for in its graphics processing and memory. Also keep in mind that the Gamecube and Wii are both capable of certain graphical effects that the Xbox simply couldn't do.

[Edited on 04.18.2012 11:51 PM PDT]

  • 04.18.2012 11:48 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: DusK
Posted by: General Heed
So what do you guys think? Is the Original Xbox comparable or even better than the Wii in terms of processing and graphics power?

Xbox's CPU: 733MHz Pentium III
Xbox's GPU: 233MHz nVidia NV2A
Xbox's RAM: 64 MB shared

Wii's CPU: 729MHz ATI Broadway
Wii's GPU: 243MHz ATI Hollywood
Wii's RAM: 88 MB main memory (24 MB "internal" 1T-SRAM integrated into graphics package, 64 MB "external" GDDR3 SDRAM), 3 MB embedded GPU texture memory and framebuffer

Yeah, the answer to your question is a pretty easy "no". What little it lags behind the Xbox in terms of processing, it more than makes up for in its graphics processing and memory. Also keep in mind that the Gamecube and Wii are both capable of certain graphical effects that the Xbox simply couldn't do.


But why is it that the Wii can't display in HD resolutions? I don't know if the Xbox had any games that were native 1080i or any HD resolutions, but it was at least capable of upscaling to 1080i. The Wii just looks terrible on a 1080p HDTV. It can only upscale to 576i.

What graphical effects are you referring to? I remember that games used to always look better on the Xbox than the Gamecube or PS2 versions (eg. Star Wars Battlefront II). Back then, I think DirectX was more advanced than the version of OpenGL that the Gamecube used and nVidia had the edge over ATI back then.

And about the CPU, is the x86 architecture better or PowerPC? The Xbox does have a higher clock speed, but an efficient architecture might not require higher clock speeds. You see, the rumor is that the next-gen Xbox will have a 16-core PowerPC CPU from IBM (there is one in existence already), but even if the rumor is true, would such a CPU be better than say a 6-core Sandy Bridge Core i7? And in that case, would the Original Xbox's x86 Intel CPU be better than the Wii's PowerPC CPU which has a slightly lower clock speed?

Lol I found this really old thread while searching for info about the Xbox GPU. I think it's interesting how much perception of console power has changed in the last 10 years.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30105

Today we consider consoles to always be behind PC's and will never be better. But it seems over 10 years ago, people thought consoles were always a step ahead of PC's and it would take PC's about a year or so to catchup and surpass current gen consoles. That's no longer the case now of course.

[Edited on 04.19.2012 12:49 PM PDT]

  • 04.19.2012 12:10 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent

Posted by: General Heed
Today we consider consoles to always be behind PC's and will never be better. But it seems over 10 years ago, people thought consoles were always a step ahead of PC's and it would take PC's about a year or so to catchup and surpass current gen consoles. That's no longer the case now of course.
Congrats. You've discovered a pattern that has been going on for around 15 - 20 years now.

Consoles are developed with close to top of the line hardware on launch. Everyone knows this. If they weren't, there would hardly even be a point in making them. (Unless you're Nintendo apparently) Like you said, it's only about a year after a console launch that the average gaming PC is built better than the consoles that launch.

  • 04.19.2012 12:59 PM PDT

Halo 3


Posted by: General Heed
It also seems Halo 4's multiplayer is more about balance rather than pure unadulterated fun. Remember Halo from the good old days when people weren't too concerned with balance issues? People just wanted to have fun in Halo and blast each other away. But starting with Halo: Reach, balance became a more serious issue for the game developers and now in Halo 4, it's clear that balance was at the top of their list and you're no longer going to have the fun we used to have in Halo.
power?


More like halo reach was the game that was extremely chaotic and unbalanced. Nothing flowed in that game. Armor abilities/load outs just created more reasons for individuals to become lone wolves in team-oriented playlists.

  • 04.19.2012 5:01 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: General Heed
But why is it that the Wii can't display in HD resolutions? I don't know if the Xbox had any games that were native 1080i or any HD resolutions, but it was at least capable of upscaling to 1080i. The Wii just looks terrible on a 1080p HDTV. It can only upscale to 576i.

I've honestly never heard of this. If it did really do this, those games sacrificed a lot of eye candy to get something like this working.

Posted by: General Heed
What graphical effects are you referring to? I remember that games used to always look better on the Xbox than the Gamecube or PS2 versions (eg. Star Wars Battlefront II). Back then, I think DirectX was more advanced than the version of OpenGL that the Gamecube used and nVidia had the edge over ATI back then.

More advanced shaders for one. Compare Phantasy Star Online's water and some particle effects like Ryuker on each system, for example.

Posted by: General Heed
And about the CPU, is the x86 architecture better or PowerPC? The Xbox does have a higher clock speed, but an efficient architecture might not require higher clock speeds. You see, the rumor is that the next-gen Xbox will have a 16-core PowerPC CPU from IBM (there is one in existence already), but even if the rumor is true, would such a CPU be better than say a 6-core Sandy Bridge Core i7? And in that case, would the Original Xbox's x86 Intel CPU be better than the Wii's PowerPC CPU which has a slightly lower clock speed?

PowerPC processors are generally more efficient than x86 processors for consoles. For reference, the processor in the Wii is PowerPC-based, and the Xbox's Pentium III is x86.

Posted by: General Heed
Lol I found this really old thread while searching for info about the Xbox GPU. I think it's interesting how much perception of console power has changed in the last 10 years.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30105

Today we consider consoles to always be behind PC's and will never be better. But it seems over 10 years ago, people thought consoles were always a step ahead of PC's and it would take PC's about a year or so to catchup and surpass current gen consoles. That's no longer the case now of course.

I've never heard of a time when "people thought consoles were always a step ahead of PC's and it would take PC's about a year or so to catchup and surpass current gen consoles". I've been gaming since the late 90s, and PCs have always been superior to consoles in terms of power.

  • 04.19.2012 5:49 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent


Posted by: DusK
I've never heard of a time when "people thought consoles were always a step ahead of PC's and it would take PC's about a year or so to catchup and surpass current gen consoles". I've been gaming since the late 90s, and PCs have always been superior to consoles in terms of power.
I think he's making the mistake of saying all PCs when the reality it's just the average gaming PC that's slightly less powerful than the consoles on release.

  • 04.19.2012 6:09 PM PDT

Yes, I AM just that awesome.

It feels like I'm the only person on Earth who likes the way the game looks so far.

  • 04.19.2012 6:51 PM PDT

Halo 3


Posted by: BouncedMr happy
It feels like I'm the only person on Earth who likes the way the game looks so far.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t060JHOI2k&feature=relmfu
Yeah, it looks nice.

:p

  • 04.19.2012 7:29 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: Dr Syx
Posted by: General Heed
Today we consider consoles to always be behind PC's and will never be better. But it seems over 10 years ago, people thought consoles were always a step ahead of PC's and it would take PC's about a year or so to catchup and surpass current gen consoles. That's no longer the case now of course.
Congrats. You've discovered a pattern that has been going on for around 15 - 20 years now.

Consoles are developed with close to top of the line hardware on launch. Everyone knows this. If they weren't, there would hardly even be a point in making them. (Unless you're Nintendo apparently) Like you said, it's only about a year after a console launch that the average gaming PC is built better than the consoles that launch.


I don't think that's the case anymore. A console using modern top of the line hardware would be very expensive. Based on what little info we have on the Wii U, you can already count that out as having top of the line hardware. And if the rumors for the next-gen Xbox are true, the graphics card won't really be that great. The only impressive thing would be the 16-core CPU, but it's not really that important compared to the GPU.

Basically, we've reached the point where consoles can no longer match the average gaming PC without being super expensive. Now it'd be a different story if Microsoft were to sell a powerful next-gen Xbox at a huge loss and try to make the money back through Xbox Live (kind of like how cell phone carriers make money).


Posted by: DusK
Posted by: General Heed
But why is it that the Wii can't display in HD resolutions? I don't know if the Xbox had any games that were native 1080i or any HD resolutions, but it was at least capable of upscaling to 1080i. The Wii just looks terrible on a 1080p HDTV. It can only upscale to 576i.

I've honestly never heard of this. If it did really do this, those games sacrificed a lot of eye candy to get something like this working.


I was surprised at first too, however it's the truth. 576i is the Wii's max output resolution. Likewise, the Gamecube couldn't output in HD resolutions either. The Original Xbox was the first game console capable of outputting in HD resolutions.

[Edited on 04.19.2012 8:16 PM PDT]

  • 04.19.2012 8:08 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent


Posted by: BouncedMr happy
It feels like I'm the only person on Earth who likes the way the game looks so far.
Believe it or not, I'm actually starting to turn around. I think it was the initial shock of everything that got me but it's all starting to sound really nice now...

  • 04.19.2012 8:37 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!

I wanted to ask this in the off topic forum, but I feel this question would be better answered here and this particular thread is meant for off topic discussion anyways.

By now, I'm sure you're aware of the new x86 intel atom smartphone that was released in India. Initial benchmarks show the single core atom beats the latest dual core ARM CPUs and even goes head to head with the latest Tegra 3 quad core ARM CPUs.

Now my questions is, of x86 CPUs from Intel or amd becomes the dominant smartphone chip in the future, will this be the end of Android fragmentation? From what I understand, Android fragmentation is caused by irregular carrier updates and lack of consistent drivers between devices. According to Microsoft and the people working on Raspberry Pi, operating systems for ARM chips have to be compiled for chips from specific manufacturers. Windows 8 only supports certain ARM chips. With Intel x86, it has generic drivers as well as legacy support which means an x86 OS will work on any x86 chip regardless of type or manufacturer which is why Windows 7 still can run on a Pentium II and why OS X can technically be run on any PC despite what Apple says.

So if Intel brings x86 and it's universal generic drivers to smartphones, does that mean like Windows, Android and Windows Phone won't have to worry about fragmentation anymore since each OS only has to be compiled once and they can be installed universally across all x86 smartphones without any problems or compatibility issues? And does this mean apps will work perfectly and consistently across all android phones that run off of x86 chips?

  • 04.22.2012 9:20 PM PDT