I've decided......

[Boogle]

In Kameo they started playing around with numerous characters on screen at once. In the end they couldn't actually reach the limit of the console due to having two many characters to actually choreograph. We're talking 30k+ characters on screen at the same time, and still not at a limit.

Then there's Ninety Nine Nights with thousands of characters on screen at once (if not tens of thousands).

To say the Xbox 360 can't handle a game like Medieval Total War 2 is ridiculous, especially as its as powerful as a super high-end PC, but with the advantage of being fixed hardware.

The upgrade argument continues to re-occur because a console's graphics are often a match for high detail in many games (especially the Xbox 360 right now). Running medium detail often knocks you back to earlier console games, or even the previous generation.

 

[Spud21]

In Kameo they started playing around with numerous characters on screen at once. In the end they couldn't actually reach the limit of the console due to having two many characters to actually choreograph. We're talking 30k+ characters on screen at the same time, and still not at a limit.

Then there's Ninety Nine Nights with thousands of characters on screen at once (if not tens of thousands).

To say the Xbox 360 can't handle a game like Medieval Total War 2 is ridiculous, especially as its as powerful as a super high-end PC, but with the advantage of being fixed hardware.

Why are there no strategy games of any pedigree on consoles then ? Graphically it could handle it but it takes more than graphics to make a game, as i have already stated, Medieval total war is graphically poor but it is still superior to any other strategy game of it's ilk bar Rome Total war.

Great that it nocks you back to a last gen console, what does it matter though? all this obsession for graphics has seriously harmed the innovation of the games industry, both Pc and Console, wow Cod2 look stunning yes, but it's still a dull generic shooter, nothing innovative about it at all, PDZ same applies, Halo 3 will be another generic shooter, PGR 3 yay it looks great but it's still a generic driving game.

 

[Sweetloaf]

Why are there no strategy games of any pedigree on consoles then ? Graphically it could handle it but it takes more than graphics to make a game, as i have already stated, Medieval total war is graphically poor but it is still superior to any other strategy game of it's ilk bar Rome Total war.

I think it has more to do with the controller than the machines power. I think BFMEII is due out soon for the 360 so it will be interesting to see how well it works, probably not quite your cup of tea but the first RTS to appear on a console for quite a while.

All in all this is a pointless argument, I prefer PC gaming and accept that some people prefer console games, where is the harm in liking different things?

 

[Spud21]

I think it has more to do with the controller than the machines power. I think BFMEII is due out soon for the 360 so it will be interesting to see how well it works, probably not quite your cup of tea but the first RTS to appear on a console for quite a while.

All in all this is a pointless argument, I prefer PC gaming and accept that some people prefer console games, where is the harm in liking different things?

I agree, that there is no harm in liking different things, but there are still things that the Pc can do that consoles can't touch, basically the things that require true power rather than just graphical power, i'd love to see a console try to cope wit LOMAC which could bring a top of the line pc to it's knees with the sheer amount of processing as well as graphical power it required, the versions of Cm we have seen on consoles have to be cut down enormously because they simply can't deal with them.

it's just people in here are somehow claiming that Consoles are in very way superior to Pc's, wich they are not, for cheap good looking games, particularly FPS and Driving games even with the disadvantage of the control method for FPS they obsoluetly pummel PC's, but when a gmae needs the other resources at a pc's disposal then a console simply can't cope. Put it this way the best CM game the x-box could handle was one that a positively archaeic Pc could deal with, and even then it was vastly cut down do a database less than half the size of that on the Pc versions, it was like going back to Cm 2.

I love my 360 for certain things, but for other things it just can't cope despite of all it's huge graphical power.

 

[Chaapa'ai]

I love my XBOX 360. You can tell by the specs of my PC that I haven't played any newer PC games in QUITE a while. Got tired of playing the "mod game" every couple of months when a new graphics card, cpu, or faster HD (ata to sata to 10k rpm raptor) came out. The XBOX 360 seems to be more of a toy made for adults then kids. I am a parent and there is no way in hell I would ever buy my kid a $400 console + games and maybe some accessories for christmas or their birthday.

Anyways, yes I am enjoying my new gaming toy more than my pc.

 

[Sweetloaf]

I am a parent and there is no way in hell I would ever buy my kid a $400 console + games and maybe some accessories for christmas or their birthday.

So you bought it for yourself??

I bet you eat chocolate cake while they have dry bread

 

[Boogle]

Spud21, I'm really confused by your posts:

Oh while i'm at it Medieval total war 2 looks ***** amazing. A further slap in the face for consoles

as i have already stated, Medieval total war is graphically poor but it is still superior to any other strategy game of it's ilk bar Rome Total war.

basically the things that require true power rather than just graphical power, i'd love to see a console try to cope wit LOMAC which could bring a top of the line pc to it's knees with the sheer amount of processing as well as graphical power it required, the versions of Cm we have seen on consoles have to be cut down enormously because they simply can't deal with them.

So which is it? Graphically superior, or graphically inferior? Are we talking just about CPU power, or just GPU power, or both?

The Xbox 360 has three 3.2Ghz CPUs with a shared L2 cache. It has a direct line to the GPU via that L2 cache. It has more raw processor power than almost all PCs, and unlike the PS3, all three cores are real microprocessors (ie. multipurpose). The Xbox 360 is far from lacking in power. What does seperate it from the PC is its a completely new architecture and therefore will take a year for any real use of the 3 cores to arrive. PCs have been the same architecture (more or less) since around 1995 or so, thats 11 years of experience. This compared to what, 6 months with final Xbox 360 hardware? It took more than 6 months to make a 3D game on the PC, even when hardware was around that could run it. For comparisons sake, the PSX has no 3D hardware, it only has some units in the CPU that can run geometry calculations (similiar to SSE3).

The only reason the Xbox 360 doesn't have a game like Rome Total War is down to the control method. Fortunately the Xbox 360 has no restrictions on input methods like the original did.

The Xbox 360 is not superior to a PC, it can't be, its fixed hardware. However, its biggest advantage is that it has fixed hardware. That means less bugs, easier to play games, no intrusive anti-piracy, no CD keys, mostly cheat-free online, cheaper etc. etc.

There are things PCs can't do, and things consoles can't do. The Xbox 360 is the first console (possibly along with the PS3) that can do things PCs can do to. You have a high quality online service that is rapidly approaching what the PC can do, and will exceed it. With proper support for extra peripherals, the Xbox 360 (and PS3) can play games that are traditionally PC-only. The final piece of the puzzle: High resolution gaming, both the Xbox 360 and PS3 support this too. The advantage of the PC: Always graphically superior, and this advantage will never be eclipsed while ATI and NV are at each other's throats.

 

[mark_t50]

I don't think I'll ever ditch PC gaming, I have a 360 and enjoy the gaming experience I get from it, but I also have a fairly decent PC and enjoy it a lot. I don't see the need to dump one for the other. Infact I see them as almost seperate with regards to gaming anyway, I find that the PC is better for certain game types and that the 360 or consoles in general are better at others.
For example I find the PC is better for game types such as:

Driving sims - LFS, Rfactor, GT Legends, GTR, NetKar Pro.
FPs - Battlefield 2, HL2, FEAR, Farcry, UT series, Doom/Quake games.
Strategy - C&c series, Rome total war, Warcraft III.
Online - CS, DoD, CoD series, WoW, EQ2, EVE, City of Heroes/Villians.

Yet I think consoles are better at:

Beatem up - Tekken series, Dead or Alive 4, Soul caliber.
Arcade driving - PGR3, Burnout, Gran Tourismo series, ridge racer.
Live - PGR3, Burnout, Fight Night.
Misc - Kameo, GRAW, Oblivion.

I understand why people would want to leave PC gaming at the moment though, whether it's because of the cost of getting a decent PC or the hastle sometimes involved in PC gaming. But I think this has always been an ongoing cycle, as the new generation of consoles appear they make current PC rigs look expensive and technologically inferior, but just think what PC games will be like in 3 years time when we're still maybe a couple of years away from the next next gen consoles, I bet in 3 years the PC will be getting games that put the 360 and PS3 in the shade technologically and graphically, of course this will all be at a high cost though. And so the cycle continues.

 

[Spud21]

Spud21, I'm really confused by your posts:







So which is it? Graphically superior, or graphically inferior? Are we talking just about CPU power, or just GPU power, or both?

Medieval Total war is a game that is 4 years old, Strangely enough Medieval Total War 2 is a seperate game, thought the 2 gave that one away tbh

Was talking aout the combination of GPU power and CPU power needed for games like LOMAC to run perfectly, you needed large amounts of both for it to run well, and obviously Cm needs about as much GPU power as Dos did

Just because i say something looks good doesn't mean i'm simply talking aout graphics, it looks good mean it looks like a very good game, graphically it is good but it's whats behind the graphics of MTW 2 that should make it another superb example of why Pc gaming is very much alive and well.

The Xbox 360 has three 3.2Ghz CPUs with a shared L2 cache. It has a direct line to the GPU via that L2 cache. It has more raw processor power than almost all PCs, and unlike the PS3, all three cores are real microprocessors (ie. multipurpose). The Xbox 360 is far from lacking in power. What does seperate it from the PC is its a completely new architecture and therefore will take a year for any real use of the 3 cores to arrive. PCs have been the same architecture (more or less) since around 1995 or so, thats 11 years of experience. This compared to what, 6 months with final Xbox 360 hardware? It took more than 6 months to make a 3D game on the PC, even when hardware was around that could run it. For comparisons sake, the PSX has no 3D hardware, it only has some units in the CPU that can run geometry calculations (similiar to SSE3).

The only reason the Xbox 360 doesn't have a game like Rome Total War is down to the control method. Fortunately the Xbox 360 has no restrictions on input methods like the original did.

The Xbox 360 is not superior to a PC, it can't be, its fixed hardware. However, its biggest advantage is that it has fixed hardware. That means less bugs, easier to play games, no intrusive anti-piracy, no CD keys, mostly cheat-free online, cheaper etc. etc.

There are things PCs can't do, and things consoles can't do. The Xbox 360 is the first console (possibly along with the PS3) that can do things PCs can do to. You have a high quality online service that is rapidly approaching what the PC can do, and will exceed it. With proper support for extra peripherals, the Xbox 360 (and PS3) can play games that are traditionally PC-only. The final piece of the puzzle: High resolution gaming, both the Xbox 360 and PS3 support this too. The advantage of the PC: Always graphically superior, and this advantage will never be eclipsed while ATI and NV are at each other's throats.

Why if it is purely down to control method, which are removed by the 360 why aren't creative assembly making Medieval Total War 2 for te 360 as it woulod bring in increased sale due to having a larger audience ?

Strange i thought the reason that they had to cut down the Champ man on the x-box was more to do with the fact that it didn't have the memory or ability to be able to have the entire database and process the games being played in the background, but ok then it was obviously down to the controller the Total was series is far more intensive on system resources than CM is, so as the last gen of consoles was unable even to take on that task, i'm somewhat dubious that the 360 could handle MTW 2. Graphics have never been the weakness of consoles, it has been the lack of huge aounts of Ram, until the x-box lack of a hdd.

Unless you could somehow get to be able to install games on the 360 Hdd then games like RTW will be painfully slow, due to it having to read everything off the disc. Now that would be a massive step towards beaing able to compete with a pc on all gaming levels.

Live has been a revolution but it's still a long way behind Pc multiplayer gaming, because it is relying on relatively low speed home connections for everything, the Dl speeds may be great on home conns, but the upload speeds which is what matters when hosting are too low for big style multiplayer games, eg i can play CSS with 63 other people with a ping of 50, on the 360 whats the largest number of people you can have ? 24 players on BF 2, and if the expirence of BF2 on the xbox is anything to go by in the main that is going to lag like hell. Which is a shame as the 360 is in ther perfect position to really get to grips with games like BF2 as the control method is perfect for it, you can shoot well with a pad, hop in a jet and fly with ease, fly helicopters easily and drive easily. If Ms bothered to actually make the XBL sub worth the money you pay for it, more than on the x-box whereyou got the odd little bit of added content but bugger all really, and supplied some dedicated servers with high speed connections, then mabye it oculd begin to rival the Pc online community.

 

[georges]

As much as I would love to pc game properly, I just don't have the funds for a top spec pc thats required now. I think cod2 will likely be my last pc game (maybe an odd one down the line) but it's the only one I play (apart from cod1 on this really poor comp in my room).

I'm fairly set on the nintendo revolution as it's cheap, and the controller may have an edge at aiming over the mouse/keyboard combo. Red steel sounds fun, as does MP:3, and there'll no doubt be plenty of stuff to keep me occupied. I'm not getting an HDTV so there's no need for a ps3 or xb360 either.

Also, you can't beat PES5 on Ps2 drunk with mates. No competition on PC, just not as intuitive controls.

 

[Boogle]

Medieval Total war is a game that is 4 years old, Strangely enough Medieval Total War 2 is a seperate game, thought the 2 gave that one away tbh

I was talking about the Xbox 360 potentially being better than the latest one, whatever one it was. You said the Xbox 360 couldn't do better, yet I demonstrated it can. I was confused because you were mentioning Medival Total War 1 & 2, when the latest is Rome Total War 2 iirc.

Was talking aout the combination of GPU power and CPU power needed for games like LOMAC to run perfectly, you needed large amounts of both for it to run well, and obviously Cm needs about as much GPU power as Dos did

...

Why if it is purely down to control method, which are removed by the 360 why aren't creative assembly making Medieval Total War 2 for te 360 as it woulod bring in increased sale due to having a larger audience ?

Strange i thought the reason that they had to cut down the Champ man on the x-box was more to do with the fact that it didn't have the memory or ability to be able to have the entire database and process the games being played in the background, but ok then it was obviously down to the controller the Total was series is far more intensive on system resources than CM is, so as the last gen of consoles was unable even to take on that task, i'm somewhat dubious that the 360 could handle MTW 2. Graphics have never been the weakness of consoles, it has been the lack of huge aounts of Ram, until the x-box lack of a hdd.

...

Live has been a revolution but it's still a long way behind Pc multiplayer gaming, because it is relying on relatively low speed home connections for everything, the Dl speeds may be great on home conns, but the upload speeds which is what matters when hosting are too low for big style multiplayer games,

...

I was talking about the Xbox 360 which has everything needed, maybe even sufficient memory. Only thing it lacks is the control method - which can now be resolved. There is also a large chunk of the HD's memory reserved for caching, this is similiar to installing the game without having to actually install it.

Later in Xbox Live's lifetime there will be dedicated servers set up, this is what I was alluding to when I said Live will eventually eclipse PC online capabilities. You have easier patching, cheats are banned from the entire service (all games) and losing cash means people are less likely to do it anyway. You have voice coms in all games, you have a rep system. Only missing link are the dedicated servers (for better quality MP, and more players).

 

[atpbx]

That's one of the things though isn't it. When ever anyone talks about PC gaming they always mention the same few titles... What was it this time; Quake 3 and Starcraft?

With Console gaming people do trade because there's a lot of games, people all have the same system they're all designed to be run on and there's less incentive to replay as there's always something bigger and better.

There are thousands of brilliant PC games.

Its just people cant be bothered to look.

If you look over the lifespan of the PS2, and look at a list of PC games released over that time, you will be amazed at the amount of top quality gaming you could have been having.

Looking at what PC games i have left after what i have given away over the past few months (nearly 40 titles) ive got some top games left that you just cant get either at all, or to a decent quality on a console:

Battlefield 2
H&D 2
X3
Shogun Total War.
Medievel Total War
Rome Total War.
Ground Control 1 and 2
Joint Ops
Operation Flashpoint.
Nolf 1 and 2.
X-com as ive mentioned (although the PS1 had a brilliant version of enemy unknown)
F.E.A.R
X wing Alliance
Freespace 1 and 2
Plus the stuff that has been released cross platform that we get the best versions of, Oblivion, Doom 3, Splinter cell Chaos theory, Farenheit.....

PC's just do most things better for me, and have by far the better games.
I have consoles because, sometimes, just sometimes they have really good games.
Ive got 3 games for my gamecube Resident evil/0/4.

Ive had a PS2 since launch and i have not even switched it on since since i got bored with GT4 about a week after it came out.
My X-box has been gathering dust for about 6 months.

 

[Spud21]

I was talking about the Xbox 360 potentially being better than the latest one, whatever one it was. You said the Xbox 360 couldn't do better, yet I demonstrated it can. I was confused because you were mentioning Medival Total War 1 & 2, when the latest is Rome Total War 2 iirc.



I was talking about the Xbox 360 which has everything needed, maybe even sufficient memory. Only thing it lacks is the control method - which can now be resolved. There is also a large chunk of the HD's memory reserved for caching, this is similiar to installing the game without having to actually install it.

Later in Xbox Live's lifetime there will be dedicated servers set up, this is what I was alluding to when I said Live will eventually eclipse PC online capabilities. You have easier patching, cheats are banned from the entire service (all games) and losing cash means people are less likely to do it anyway. You have voice coms in all games, you have a rep system. Only missing link are the dedicated servers (for better quality MP, and more players).

I was mentioning Medieval total war as an example of how graphics mean squat, medieval has inferior graphics to many more rescent strategy games, yet still whips the pant's out of all of them bar Rome Total war which is the most rescent, the sequence goes, Shogun Total War, Medieval Total war, Rome Total war, Medieval total war 2 which is coming out this year.

With the online then that is only good news as that has been it's only weakness, but even then it's going to struggle to keep pace wit the Pc online community, well unless they start handing out huge numbers of 360 dev kits so people can make mods, but apart from that it will be awesome, and i shall once again be loosing many, many hours on XBL Don't pretend that XBL is somehow devoid of cheating though, it is most definately not, Halo 2 was not far behind CS for the sheer amount of cheating that went on, using standby, and other glitches, the main reason why many people got bored of ranked games because after a certain point it was just stupid as you'd just get standbye'd every damn game, ad completely screwed up the learning curve as it just basically put some of the better players with far weaker players because of the amount of times good players would loose and get shunted down levels because of others cheating. It does reduce the amount of cheats available to use but it is succeptable to cheats which no amount of anti - cheat software can stop as they are glitches in the software which can be exploited using hardware.

How big is the section of the HDD used for caching? Doesn't appear to make that much difference from what i have seen well it does compared to other console games, but not compared to an installed game on a PC, load times for Quake 4 compared to my well out of date pc are an absolute age. It's not as if the levels are huge in Quake 4 either, take that and put it to a battle with over 10,000 men at least half of which controlled by AI, you are looking at some horific load times.

 

[Psyk]

That's one of the things though isn't it. When ever anyone talks about PC gaming they always mention the same few titles... What was it this time; Quake 3 and Starcraft?

They're just two examples. The point is games of those genres (FPS and RTS) usually work better on a PC because a mouse and keyboard is a more natural way to play them. Just like beat em ups work better with a console controller.

 

[Mr109]

Theres an add in the new Gamestm mag for people to work on Medieval Total war II on next-gen, so we'll be able to play it on 360 at some point .

Al