XBOX 360 graphics

Admiral Huddy · 16 Nov 2009 at 15:44

Let's be honest here, the console is an ageing technology which is now starting to lag behind PC technology and the introduction of DX11 only widens the gap. However, from a developers point of view do you think they are really going to invest large sums of money in to a very niche market and have the support problems afterwards? My guess is no, so most games are developed with the console market in mind and PC power goes wasted. We've only just started seeing the effects of DX10 let alone DX11. And this why cards like the 8800GTX still run as good as they did 3 years ago because the developers haven't pushed boundaries. yet..

So with that said, it's no wonder that games don't look much different between the two and the console becomes a viable choice for value for money. Which they are.

I think for most PC gamers, it's a two fold hobby. It's the technology and the games that attracts some to spend vast amounts of time and money to build forwhat is the ultimate gaming platform. Again, which it is, but it's wasted technology for the reason already explained. Spending all the money on PCs appears to be illogical but then most hobbies are.

Some people like to switch on and go and for that reason the two are incomparable. It's a bit like comparing a ford ka to 911. Two very different performing cars at different prices. The 911 is faster but illogical since you can only do a max of 70 on the roads so you could say the ka makes the more sense....

SfnX · 16 Nov 2009 at 15:46

the thing i dont like about the xbox is:
1. Unable to change settings, except for button layout etc
2. no keyboard/mouse =[
3. Customization is at a nil
4. breaks more than a pencil

AMG · 16 Nov 2009 at 16:00

Merlin5 said:

I was suprsied by the graphics on that, and she looked brown haired on mine not ginger

I perfer PCs a lot more versatile a lot more choice and they tend to look a whole lot better on the screen also a lot more expensive -.-

Admiral Huddy · 16 Nov 2009 at 16:52

SfnX said:
the thing i dont like about the xbox is:
1. Unable to change settings, except for button layout etc
2. no keyboard/mouse =[
3. Customization is at a nil
4. breaks more than a pencil

This is point I made above, not everyone wants the hassle of PCs and would much prefer the "switch on and play" approach.

AMG · 16 Nov 2009 at 17:46

Admiral Huddy said:
This is point I made above, not everyone wants the hassle of PCs and would much prefer the "switch on and play" approach.

1+ed PC gaming can be very troublsome particauly games that like crashing :mad:

PanchoVilla · 16 Nov 2009 at 18:52

edGfaCTor said:
...

use same budget and then compare 360 elite £200 vs pc £200 the console wins.
...

That sums it up. Why can't you build a pc for £200 and play games like MW2 at the same quality as the XBOX? I for one would be satisfied with that since I'm not easily impressed but AA, AF, ASAP, RSVP etc. to spend an extra 3-4 hundred to experience.

feeddagoat · 16 Nov 2009 at 19:33

What I like about pc gaming over console gaming is the higher resolutions. Im very tempted to move back to consoles tho but thats only because I want to play gran turismo 5, MGS4, Little Big planet, Halo 3, Forza 3 and Final fantasy when its released.

mrchristian · 16 Nov 2009 at 19:56

Im surprised no one has mentioned mods and the other user made content that is available to pc gamers. This to me is one of my favorite things about pc gaming and is one a lot of my friends with consoles wish they could have.

cmndr_andi · 16 Nov 2009 at 20:10

mrchristian said:
Im surprised no one has mentioned mods and the other user made content that is available to pc gamers. This to me is one of my favorite things about pc gaming and is one a lot of my friends with consoles wish they could have.

Good point.

Same goes for legacy game support so you can play pretty much pretty much any PC game ever (DOSBox rocks), not just stuff from 2002 onwards.

Also, multiplayer is much better on PC, dedicated servers are awesome (still playing 64 player Battlefield 2 to this day). Plus, there are MMOs, if you like that sort of thing.

Mouse and keyboard is the way to play first person perspective games imho, you just have so much more control and have no use for autoaim/aim correction, this makes the whole experience feel more precise.

Plus, when you are done gaming you can do all the fun stuff that a fast computer can do - such as video/image/audio editing, CAD, office apps etc.

As for the premium you pay over consoles - today you can get an ATI HD 4670 for £50 which plays MW2 at 1920x1200 at 50FPS. I wager that if you slap that card in any modern, boring Dell/HP box - then you could be playing MW2 at proper Full HD, no problems.

synixx · 16 Nov 2009 at 20:11

Subtlesnake said:
What does it share exactly?

ATI said that Xenos was about on par with the X1800 XT, at least running the Toy Shop demo. It has 48 ALUs like the X1900, but these have to handle pixel and vertex workloads, and it's clocked lower than the X1900 XT/XTX (500 MHz vs. 625/650 MHz)

Considering that, Xenos' performance in MW2 is pretty impressive: look at how the X1950 XTX struggles, and the 7900 GTX gets absolutely thrashed, in the PC benchmarks:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...nchmarks-of-the-latest-Call-of-Duty/Practice/

The fact you need a 3870/9600 GT to approximate its performance on the PC, shows how beneficial it can be to work with a closed platform.

yes but in those benchmarks it is running at a higher resolution (1280x1024 compared to 1280x720 or lower) and it has 4xMSAA and 16xAF which i'm assuming the consoles dont have. I'm sure if it was running at the same settings as the consoles it would do a fair bit better although i do agree that the xbox 360 and ps3 can produce some great graphics considering the hardware they have.

95thrifles · 16 Nov 2009 at 20:13

PanchoVilla said:
That sums it up. Why can't you build a pc for £200 and play games like MW2 at the same quality as the XBOX? I for one would be satisfied with that since I'm not easily impressed but AA, AF, ASAP, RSVP etc. to spend an extra 3-4 hundred to experience.

Well for starters afail microsoft are still making a loss on every xbox sold, it actually costs them more to make than they do sell, they recoup their money on the game sales which rrp at 45-55 instead of a PCs 25-35, so yeah using a 450 PC as an example (as previously stated will still outperform an xbox/ps3) then by the time youve bought a dozen games the price evens out

That aside Id have to argue that yeah investing in a high end PC is definitely worth it, I played MW1 on both PC and mates PS3 and his looked crap, all the people banging on about how good consoles are dont know any different thats all. Again as already mentioned the depth of detail and lighting/shadows etc just give a much more real and immersive feel to it.
And yeah a console cant even get near a PC for role playing/real time strategy games - not that it gets that near in fps either imo

Phill4321 · 16 Nov 2009 at 20:13

For me the customization aspects of pc's will always make it superior. But this is just my opinion.

sanofi · 16 Nov 2009 at 20:27

I have gamed on PC and consoles for some time now and really don't have a preference, other than for sports games.

In terms of graphics, there is no doubt that a PC is capable of sharper, higher resolutions etc. However, for me personally, my experience is improved when graphically, the game mimics human sight. By this I mean, softer edges, more vibrant colours and other things like motion blur effects.

For example, lets take one of the biggest titles of recent years, GTA4.

I have this for Xbox 360 and it utilises a lot of edge blurring. I have seen screenshots of this game on PC and perhaps they were not at the highest AA levels, but they looked very much out of place.

So if the OP is talking about the overall graphical experience, then I would say that there are some cases where consoles do do very well, better than the PC at times.

But there are other factors to consider, like the difficulty in optimising pc games for lots of different hardware combinations etc.

Didaco · 16 Nov 2009 at 20:45

AMG said:
1+ed PC gaming can be very troublsome particauly games that like crashing

and the xbox360 is the most reliable machine in the world isnt it

Mr.Nick · 16 Nov 2009 at 20:58

Another point,

Most households own a basic pc anyway, which is about £300 from a high street retailer, sure it includes a monitor, but when you add that on top of and Xbox 360 around £170-£200, that comes to just under £500, which is the money for a decent gaming rig, which does what the Xbox does and the general pc does, but all in one.

ouzodan · 16 Nov 2009 at 21:31

edGfaCTor said:
Really come on people saying your pc kills console is unfair you have spent far more money to get it to do all the high resolutions.

use same budget and then compare 360 elite £200 vs pc £200 the console wins.

Console parts might be based on pc parts but they are not the same so you cant say 360 has like a ati 1900 because no it doesn't its custom build and works in different way.

Playing Devils advocate, & I know its little more expensive but I can guarantee a good bit of hunting on the Interweb & you can get this shopping list down to £200

I had an AGP HD3850 with an old P4 that could play Cod 4 without a hitch (load times were quite long though)

So believe me when I say the above is better than an XBox

PC for the win

Barso · 17 Nov 2009 at 12:56

This has to be a joke thread!
I have compared MW2 on my GTX295 at 1920x1200 all settings max and the result made me ebay my xbox 360.
The 360 version looked TERRIBLE.
I know my GTX295 would put it to shame but I found it looked so bad on 360 that I could not make details out unless upclose and playing online looked far to cluttered.
Same as forza 3, what a joke compared to the screenshots they posted before launch.

Snax · 17 Nov 2009 at 15:46

how many people judge a game on how good it looks anyway?

I personally dont give a rats**t that consoles look worse that PCs. I do miss a mouse and keyboard combo though.

Having said that the royal pain of getting drivers that work properly etc etc with a PC make console gaming so accessible. I dont have to worry that my brand new copy of GTAIV is going to work perfectly on the xbox, I dont have to fiddle around with settings of vsync etc with console games to sort out random tearing issues.

I can't choose which system is better, but to make that choice on graphics is shortsighted. The choice should be as a result of weighing up prices, facility of use, games available and personal preference.

skippy2421 · 17 Nov 2009 at 15:47

I skim read the thread so apologies if this has been posted but gamespot has done a comparison on graphics here:

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/624...=convert&om_clk=features&tag=features;title;2

As expected pc wins. In some case it's quite noticeable (image featuring speed limit sign)

PanchoVilla · 17 Nov 2009 at 17:15

Barso said:
This has to be a joke thread!
I have compared MW2 on my GTX295 at 1920x1200 all settings max and the result made me ebay my xbox 360......

Yours has to be a boast post then. The GTX295 is more than twice the price of an XBOX alone, so your rig might have cost you around 1K at least.

Is the graphics 1K better than the Xbox?

Does the game play 1K better than the Xbox?

Some value gameplay over eye candy.