General console chat (was HALF-LIFE 2 for PS2?)

[4th3ist]

Yes PSP is in development, no, it will not be able to play PSOne or PS2 games if you think that, it uses a slightly better engine than PSOne but will use its own games.
PS3s microprocessor is supposed to be done summer this year, and massproduction in Japan is supposed to start beginning of next year if I don't remember incorrectly, there has sadly been no words on the American and European release dates.

Sorry if I went too far offtopic guys ^^;

Don't be surprised to see another limited release in the states when it first comes out like we had with the PS2.

 

[mrchimp]

To the people saying we can expect ports of HL2 on PS3/X-BOX 2 - that would be dumb. I hope you realize that HL2 will look like ass compared to all PS3 games, there are even a few PS2 games that surpass/equal it in a few areas.

Only if they come up with some really funky FSAA and the PS3 is released at the very least in 2 years time.

 

[smwScott]

You're kidding me right? Only PS2 game that impressed me with it's graphics compared with other consoles was GT4, and even that is a result of trics and workarounds to get it running. Hell, the PS2 doesn't even do per pixel shading afaik, so how can you even say it comes close to a game that uses PS2.0 to the fullest?
Not to mention the texture sizes, ever looked at Max Payne 2 on the PS2? Not really high res now was it?

Not that I have anything against the PS2, but kind of sick of the persons that think that they're almost 4 year old console is some kind of magical miracle.

My god, I said in certain areas. SH3 has better character models. MGS3 has a much bigger environment and bigger draw distance. Jak 2 is pushing more polygons than just about any PC game (not saying it looks better, but this is a fact). Killzone has better volumetric effects.

And don't give me Max Payne 2 - that game looks like ass on PS2. The textures are horrid, that's like me pointing out some budget title and using that as a reason that the PC sucks.

Half-Life 2 still looks better overall than any PS2 game, or any game on the consoles for that matter. But it won't look as good as ANY PS3 game, which was my point.

 

[mrchimp]

My god, I said in certain areas. SH3 has better character models. MGS3 has a much bigger environment and bigger draw distance. Jak 2 is pushing more polygons than just about any PC game (not saying it looks better, but this is a fact). Killzone has better volumetric effects.

And don't give me Max Payne 2 - that game looks like ass on PS2. The textures are horrid, that's like me pointing out some budget title and using that as a reason that the PC sucks.

Half-Life 2 still looks better overall than any PS2 game, or any game on the consoles for that matter. But it won't look as good as ANY PS3 game, which was my point.

Unreal 2 beats MGS3 on draw distance, never mind the filght sims that have a draw distance of over 100miles, Unreal2 also beats Jak 2 on poly count by a long way, includeing the enviroment and character models. There is a PC version of SH3 that actually looks better than the PS2 version so I don't know where you were going with that.

I seriously doubt that the PS3's games will look better than HL2's simply because you can use AF and AA on it at a much higher resolution, Also the bink videos for HL2 were taken off a GF4, the closest indication to how good HL2 is going to look is the DX9 tech demo and that didn't show much did it?

 

[maleficarus™]

The argument that that since the PS2 only has a 295MHz clock speed it can't run HL2 - mentally retarded. Show me a 295MHz computer that can run MGS2, GT3, Silent Hill 3 ..... or 90% of all PS2 games. The architecture is totally uncomparable to a PC's and is useless to even try to compare specs.

HL2 could very well be done on PS2, but it would require far too much work to be worth it. The engine is DX9 based, the PS2 is not. They'd have to totally rewrite large portions of the engine to get it functioning at all, and on top of that they'd have to optimize it a lot to work with PS2's hardware. Most of the fancy graphics on PS2 come from tricks that are specific to PS2 ... the DX9 shaders could be faked but it would require a lot of work. To put it briefly - it's possible but it isn't worth it.

The X-BOX is almost identical to a PC - it even has a freakin' Geforce 3. It's pretty lame really, but it's just a cheap PC that can only play games. Becuase of this I imagine it would be much easier to port the game to X-BOX, although obviously with visual sacrifices (probably DX8 quality).

And Valve can't wait for PS3 - HL2 would look like ass compared to PS3 games, kinda like HL1 does on the PS2. I mean, that would just be sad - HL2 can't hold a candle to 2005 PS3 games - so that really isn't an option.

Dude you need to stop being stupid for a second. I could show you a dozen 295 MHz PC's playing all those games yea. You want to know why? Because it would only needed to be played in a sub 640 TV resolution. That's the catch!
You say "The architecture is totally uncomparable to a PC's and is useless to even try to compare specs" Well that's rubbish! Fundamentally the architecture is exactly the same. Both PC and console have to abide by the same set of rules. It's not like consoles get to skip something LOL Both PC and consoles have memory for textures. Both PC's and consoles rely on bandwidth. And both PC's and consoles rely heavily on CPU cycles!

The main reason why consoles have much lower hardware specs is because first and foremost consoles have very limited textures. More often then not they look blurry not well defined like on a monitor with a 1024+ resolution. And I'm not even going to mention FSAA heh.


You take a game that was designed for 2GHz PC cup’s with a half a gig of main memory, then try to scale down to a system with maybe 32MB of main memory and literally 1700MHz less CPU cycles and you got well crap! That would be like trying to make an old black and white movie look good in a modern movie theater. Sorry dude not gonna happen in this life time!

You can most certianly compare console to PC. The only problem is there is no comparisn as PC kills console in every single department...

You then talk abou tthe PS3. Again dude stop being retarted. Right now my PC specs will kill even a PS3. I have a 2GHz CPU with 512MB of RDRAM running 400MHz quad pumped x4. My VGA card runs at 300+ MHz. Yea that's right. My video card (GF4) runs faster then the fricken PS2 for crying out loud!

And by the time HL2 goes gold I'll have upgraded to a 3GHz CPU and 1GB of ram. PS25 still won't offer that much ram so give it up!

 

[Tyrant]

PS2 offers way better quality in games that 295Mhz PCs.
Look at GT4, u tell me any 295Mhz gonna run a game like that?
what i do think though is thats its totally crappy playing games like hl2 on a PS2, xbox controller is better suited to FPS games.

And hl2 graphics wow us now. By the time the game comes out this year it will already be down a few notches in the wow factor. When the next gen consoles come out in 2005 half life 2 graphics would be the standard and topshelf PS3 and XBOX2 games will far surpass it. then when hl3 comes out we will all be wowed again and the cycle continues

 

[OCybrManO]

PS2 offers way better quality in games that 295Mhz PCs.
Look at GT4, u tell me any 295Mhz gonna run a game like that?
what i do think though is thats its totally crappy playing games like hl2 on a PS2, xbox controller is better suited to FPS games.

And hl2 graphics wow us now. By the time the game comes out this year it will already be down a few notches in the wow factor. When the next gen consoles come out in 2005 half life 2 graphics would be the standard and topshelf PS3 and XBOX2 games will far surpass it. then when hl3 comes out we will all be wowed again and the cycle continues

I wouldn't expect to see any consoles released next year... last I heard Sony and Microsoft were both saying 2006 at the earliest, though Nintendo said they learned from the GameCube's mistakes are are going to try to beat Sony to the punch... so there might be one console released in 2005. Even if they were released in 2005... remember, 2005 is next year... don't talk about it like it's 4 years down the road. HL2 won't look like ass by next year. Consoles almost always have a period where their games look a little better than PC games... but PCs get updated much more quickly and surpass them within a year. When a 64-bit Windows (and 64-bit games) comes out PCs should get a boost of roughly 30% in processing speed. Combine that with ATI's R420 which is said to be twice as fast as a Radeon 9800 Pro (on a related note ATI is working with Microsoft to put an R500 in the "XBox Next"). There is also a new floating-point processor (CS301) that puts out 25Gigaflops... and each PCI addon card has 4 of them (that's 100Gigaflops per PCI card). If you put six of those cards in your computer it would qualify as one of the 500 most powerful supercomputers in the world. I wouldn't be suprised if some of those chips started making their way into motherboards (or even video cards... can we say "real-time photon mapping") as a standard part in a couple of years, like a CPU. A really fast dedicated floating-point processor (or several of them) would definately take a load off the CPU when running games (or other highly mathematical programs). I can't wait to see what game developers will do with the kind of power that PCs will have several years down the road. HL3 will be awesome!

The reason computers need tons more power to do the same job is because of Microsoft and its bloated Windows OS. Consoles do nothing that is not required of them. For example my PC, which I keep relatively clean, has 36 processes running in the background just while I view this web site. If someone made a completely stripped down gaming OS designed specifically for certain hardware configurations that could be booted into, PCs could do a lot more than any console. We also pay for having a better image... because we have to render 8 times the pixels every frame (at 1280x960) at much higher refresh rates. Then, if you hooked that beast up to a TV and it only had to run at 640x480i (interlaced means it alternates rendering even and odd lines, and is equivalent in number of pixels per frame to 640x240) it would be able to do even more. You pay for being a jack of all trades...

One last thing: Whoever said Silent Hill 3 for PS2 has better character models than HL2 is fooling themselves. I've seen people play that game and the character models are great in cutscenes (because you can cut some corners on cutscenes to allow more detailed models)... but in gameplay they are merely decent. HL2 will have characters that look as good as in SH3 cutscenes or better during the actual gameplay (unless, of course, the characters are far enough away for the LOD system to kick in).

 

[MrMan16]

think of it this way. The console gets updated with a new console, about every 3-4 years. A Computer gets updated bout every 3-4 months. And I really doubt the PS3 games will look better than H-L2

 

[maleficarus™]

I wouldn't expect to see any consoles released next year... last I heard Sony and Microsoft were both saying 2006 at the earliest, though Nintendo said they learned from the GameCube's mistakes are are going to try to beat Sony to the punch... so there might be one console released in 2005. Even if they were released in 2005... remember, 2005 is next year... don't talk about it like it's 4 years down the road. HL2 won't look like ass by next year. Consoles almost always have a period where their games look a little better than PC games... but PCs get updated much more quickly and surpass them within a year. When a 64-bit Windows (and 64-bit games) comes out PCs should get a boost of roughly 30% in processing speed. Combine that with ATI's R420 which is said to be twice as fast as a Radeon 9800 Pro (on a related note ATI is working with Microsoft to put an R500 in the "XBox Next"). There is also a new floating-point processor (CS301) that puts out 25Gigaflops... and each PCI addon card has 4 of them (that's 100Gigaflops per PCI card). If you put six of those cards in your computer it would qualify as one of the 500 most powerful supercomputers in the world. I wouldn't be suprised if some of those chips started making their way into motherboards (or even video cards... can we say "real-time photon mapping") as a standard part in a couple of years, like a CPU. A really fast dedicated floating-point processor (or several of them) would definately take a load off the CPU when running games (or other highly mathematical programs). I can't wait to see what game developers will do with the kind of power that PCs will have several years down the road. HL3 will be awesome!

The reason computers need tons more power to do the same job is because of Microsoft and its bloated Windows OS. Consoles do nothing that is not required of them. For example my PC, which I keep relatively clean, has 36 processes running in the background just while I view this web site. If someone made a completely stripped down gaming OS designed specifically for certain hardware configurations that could be booted into, PCs could do a lot more than any console. We also pay for having a better image... because we have to render 8 times the pixels every frame (at 1280x960) at much higher refresh rates. Then, if you hooked that beast up to a TV and it only had to run at 640x480i (interlaced means it alternates rendering even and odd lines, and is equivalent in number of pixels per frame to 640x240) it would be able to do even more. You pay for being a jack of all trades...

One last thing: Whoever said Silent Hill 3 for PS2 has better character models than HL2 is fooling themselves. I've seen people play that game and the character models are great in cutscenes (because you can cut some corners on cutscenes to allow more detailed models)... but in gameplay they are merely decent. HL2 will have characters that look as good as in SH3 cutscenes or better during the actual gameplay (unless, of course, the characters are far enough away for the LOD system to kick in).

I agree with most of what you say but I disagree slightly about the OS hogging up resources. That *used* to be an issue when our CPU's were sub 1000 MHz. Or when the common system had 64MB of system memory. Nowadays 2000MHz is common and 512MB of memory is usually what is advertised with most new PC's. So even if you have 25 processes running in the back ground at any given time it really doesn’t matter when you have 2000 MHz to back that up and a 1 GB of main memory heh..

Consoles realized there gaming dominance was over the day Quake2 for the PC went online with the 56K modem. That game right there doomed the home console. In 1996 online gaming was the rave for the PC. Granted we were lucky enough to have a Voodoo1, but just the idea of being online in a virtual world playing other real people around the world was enough. Sony, Sega and even Nintendo saw what was happening. But they couldn't do a darm thing about it because the console was not in any position to try to beat the PC to the Wide World Web.

They lost big time. It was about the only thing that could dethrone the gaming console. Now in 2003-04 consoles are trying to catch up by offering limited internet gaming. But it's not as big and as deep as what PC can offer. Not to mention trying to type text with a controller my gawd!!!!


The gaming console as we knew it is gone. Those glory days ended back in 96-97. I think the playstation1 was the last to even think the word "dominance". Heck Sega realized this and decided to get out of the console market all together and focus on the software part of it. They knew and were the first to see the gaming PC as the ultimate media center, not the console. Right now M$ is trying to catch some of Sony’s profits with the XBOX. But even M$ understands the PC is were it's really at these days. I would be surprised if there is going to be an XBOX2 or a PS3 to be honest. It just doesn’t make any sense investing more cash into those things when the PC can do it all NOW and offer everything you could ever want online.

Right now on my PC I can watch DVD's. I can decode then into different formats. I can play all the latest games. I can download and liisten to all the latest MP3's (for free!) I can upload and dowload files from friends and family. I can video conference real time online. I can talk real voice in all my games as they happen when they happen. I can download endless MODS for all my favorite games any time I want. I can surf the net 24/7 high speed. I can chat with people around the world any day of the week.

With the console you can play low res games. And if you are lucky enough play the odd title online with a clumsy game controller. Need I say anymore?

 

[Yatta]

Right now on my PC I can watch DVD's. I can decode then into different formats. I can play all the latest games. I can download and liisten to all the latest MP3's (for free!) I can upload and dowload files from friends and family. I can video conference real time online. I can talk real voice in all my games as they happen when they happen. I can download endless MODS for all my favorite games any time I want. I can surf the net 24/7 high speed. I can chat with people around the world any day of the week.

With the console you can play low res games. And if you are lucky enough play the odd title online with a clumsy game controller. Need I say anymore?

PWNED. .

 

[el Chi]

I think PC and consoles shouldn’t port games to each other, just make your own games.

Are you insane? If that was the case then we wouldn't have GTA3 or Vice City, and certainly wouldn't get the next one. We wouldn't have Halo (I wouldn't care actually, but MANY others would). Consoles have a lot of quality games on them and you're just being a snob. Personally, I'd love to see The Getaway on the PC but I know it'll never happen and that's a Bad Thing. See?

 

[Tyrant]

Consoles realized there gaming dominance was over the day Quake2 for the PC went online with the 56K modem. That game right there doomed the home console. In 1996 online gaming was the rave for the PC. Granted we were lucky enough to have a Voodoo1, but just the idea of being online in a virtual world playing other real people around the world was enough. Sony, Sega and even Nintendo saw what was happening. But they couldn't do a darm thing about it because the console was not in any position to try to beat the PC to the Wide World Web.

They lost big time. It was about the only thing that could dethrone the gaming console. Now in 2003-04 consoles are trying to catch up by offering limited internet gaming. But it's not as big and as deep as what PC can offer. Not to mention trying to type text with a controller my gawd!!!!


The gaming console as we knew it is gone. Those glory days ended back in 96-97. I think the playstation1 was the last to even think the word "dominance". Heck Sega realized this and decided to get out of the console market all together and focus on the software part of it. They knew and were the first to see the gaming PC as the ultimate media center, not the console. Right now M$ is trying to catch some of Sony’s profits with the XBOX. But even M$ understands the PC is were it's really at these days. I would be surprised if there is going to be an XBOX2 or a PS3 to be honest. It just doesn’t make any sense investing more cash into those things when the PC can do it all NOW and offer everything you could ever want online.

Lol diehard PC fanboy
PCs are multitasking machines, always have been and always will be. Consoles are gaming machines, and currently are more dominant now then they ever have been. So much so that some gamestops have completely removed a pc game rack. EBgames also gets fewer pc game sales than any of the consoles by themselves. Pretty much the only games that will stay on PC are RTS games, which are a dying breed anyway(gone are the days of starcraft and command and conquer). PCs crown jewels over the next year are both getting ported to the xbox, and anyone who has played a shooter on an xbox for longer than 5minutes will tell u its incredibly easy to do so. PC has been dying since ps2 was released. And when xbox showed the importance of online gameplay it will be safe to say that all 3 nextgen consoles will be power heavy in online games. Who really needs text chatting in games when everyone has voice chat? and no lag.

Few games are offering a good reason to continue playing PC games over console games. HL2 and DOOM3 will offer the best experiences on the PC, other than that there arent that many games on PC that ppl are hyped about

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

AHEM


Once Pcs are soo powerfull that it doesnt matter what you put on them they wont stuter. Why would people buy consoles....
I fully expect this to happen within 2 - 4 years. Then what happens. Consoles disapear. Thats what happens.

 

[Tyrant]

Its got nothing to do with which is the more powerful machine. Its what delivers a better gaming experience. The casual gamer isnt concerned with getting 90+fps in top shelf pc games. ppl buy whats fun to play, which is currently consoles and will always be consoles. Games on consoles are gettin more interactive while pc games are still pressing for better graphics.

 

[mrchimp]

Get out and don't return untill you have learn't to make statements that are actually based on real facts and are not completely and utterly idiotic.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a proper reply...

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

"Games on consoles are gettin more interactive while pc games are still pressing for better graphics."

Tyrant thats complete balls. And I think you know it.

 

[Tyrant]

actually u guys should look up some facts for urself. recent sony press releases state that they are currently developing more products similair to the eye toy that they plan to release with the PS3.

Give me some examples of how pc games are getting more interactive.
sure they are gettin graphic upgrades, and realistic physics in doom3 and hl2. but what else is new?

PS2 has eye toy, several dance mats, a turntable and a snowboard to name but a few. these technologies are still in their infancy and have not caught on yet, but in 2-3 years they will become as common as the steering wheel was.

Im no PS2 fanboy, i spend many more hours gaming on pc and i actually dislike the PS2 for many other reasons, this is just something that i have noticed. What will be doing 6-7 years from now with pc games? playing hl3? ut2kwhatever, quake4 or 5? they will just have better graphics and improved game physics. all im saying is that pc games need a revolution, companies seem very willing to innovate when it comes to the console arena but with pc games all they do is hand out regular upgrades.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

Well ok, you made a fair comment there after all. There have been some differences in user input designs that made consoles beter. (Bar first person shooters. I think mouse and keyboard with last a long time yet in this genre.) But the PC allways finds a way to catch up. And anyway how many people you know own one of those snow board things or the dance pads :O



Sorry, but in my opinion they are just a gimmic atm at least. They are too damn expensive and have limited use. Personally I dont think they will ever catch on. The stearing wheel was successfull becouse it was used on a variety of games. A dance mat isnt exactly usefull for anything except maybe one game and its sequals...


Meh, i gota go work, and i don't want to start an arguement (Even if my last post was quite aggressive) so i'll leave this here..

 

[Stigmata]

Give me some examples of how pc games are getting more interactive.
sure they are gettin graphic upgrades, and realistic physics in doom3 and hl2. but what else is new?

Well for one thing, game-world interaction. By that, I don't mean an advanced physics engine or more eye-catching effects. I mean environments and enemies that react to what you do. The best example of this by far is STALKER. Of course very few people know exactly how the world will stay interactive, but from what we've heard everything you do will have an effect on the world. Steal something, and someone might come after you for revenge. Kill some soldiers, and security is heightened. Shoot someone, and they'll remember who did it. Stuff like that is how PC games are advancing and getting more interactive.

And take The Sims as another. That game is years old, and is obviously many times more interactive than any gimmicky console game or product.

The type of "interactivity" that really matters isn't one that gimmick products will create. The PS2's EyeToy? That's a game that senses motion and creates the necessary effects in the game. The only difference between that and a good PC game is how it takes the input. Moving around to play the game is exactly what you do in Dance Dance Revolution, no? And I would hardly call that an "interactive" game when compared to STALKER, Half-Life, Halo, or The Sims.

 

[mrchimp]

I have a eye toy and my friend has a dance matt (it worries me too) . I have to say these were the things consoles were made for, they are emulateing arcade machines which is one of the things that is best done in my front liveing room not where i keep my PC. Also they pretty much use graphical technolodgy which would look no different on a PC (apart from the snowboard).

However they are a gimmik and offer less entertainment than lets say Tribes 2 where I not only have the abuility to interact with my equipment (i.e guns, nades, armor class) my enviroment (i.e jump, run, skie, shoot people, collect powerups) my/enemy teams facilities(i.e repair turrets, control turrets, set up more turrets, drive vehicles, destroy generators, capture the flag, repair...) but also and most importantly communicate with my teammates, set up and use tactics that are countered by my enemy and generally interact with my rich virtuall enviroment to effect the outcome of the game.

Just because i don't use a dance mat or snow ****ing board as my input method (which is all it is) it doesn't mean it's less interactive and infact I would consider it far more interactive than stamping my feet on the ground in a timed sequence. You can find the same principles I just talked about in many PC games and very few console games.

You can go ahead and call me a PC fanboy but I'll break your legs and eat you... ALIVE!!!

 

[MultiVaC]

Give me some examples of how pc games are getting more interactive.
sure they are gettin graphic upgrades, and realistic physics in doom3 and hl2. but what else is new?

Come on now. Those are really just novelties. A snowboard? That would offer much LESS control, cost a lot just for one game and not feel right overall. The only real feasible 'extra' inputs are a steering wheel and joystick because they are actually replicas of control devices and work for lots of games. And you want interactivity? How about being able to completely modify your game?

 

[Stigmata]

You know, I'd rather enjoy seeing what Tyrant can come up with to show us how consoles are revolutionizing game interactivity. Seriously. Go for it.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Hell has broken loose here!
Had an xbox, sold it two years later after it sat there for about a year and a half. My bro has a ps2 which I think is a waste of money. I would never touch that peice of crap. I just cant stand console games anymore, btw I was a hardcore console gamer in the past.
The low resolution of the console games just suck. I hate those damn jaggies, they are the devil. Arn't consoles/tvs based on like a 600x800 resolution or something similiar? And plus, I consoles gamepad has like max 10 buttons (maybe more w/e, doesn't matter) and are placed is retarded positions so how can you do things similiar to pc games unless you have a keyboard? Like leaning/proning/couching/... theres just too many buttons that we need. Not saying any console games cant be enjoyable or entertaining, just not for those hardcore "eye candy" gamers. hehe


Who was the guy that said Silent Hill3 looks better than HL2? Isn't Silent Hill 1/2/3 mostly prerendered scenes besides small entities/objects? And you know how you said HL2 will look like crap when ps3 comes out, well Isn't it comign out in Q2 2005? I bet by then, pc games will look alot better also. A consoles technology in any aspect ... graphics/dynamics/sound etc will never be more superior to the PC's cause of course consoles are based of computer technology.

 

[smwScott]

Unreal 2 beats MGS3 on draw distance, never mind the filght sims that have a draw distance of over 100miles, Unreal2 also beats Jak 2 on poly count by a long way, includeing the enviroment and character models. There is a PC version of SH3 that actually looks better than the PS2 version so I don't know where you were going with that.

I seriously doubt that the PS3's games will look better than HL2's simply because you can use AF and AA on it at a much higher resolution, Also the bink videos for HL2 were taken off a GF4, the closest indication to how good HL2 is going to look is the DX9 tech demo and that didn't show much did it?

Well I wasn't comparing those games to Unreal 2 or the PC in general - I was comparing it to HL2. That's like you telling me that Max Payne 2 on PC looks better than the PS2 version (which it certainly does) - and me countering that with "But Gran Turismo 4 looks better than Max Payne 2" - it's totally off subject. And I seriously doubt Unreal 2 has more polygons than Jak 2 - which has 15,000 polygon character models (to make up for lack of normal mapping).

And to the guy who told me to "stop being stupid" - you're the stupid one. The PS2 share's some common ground with a PC but it is TOTALLY different. And your point is heavily flawed. Even if you killed all the detail, and lowered the resolution to 640 - you still wouldn't get games like GT4 - hell, even the early games running on it. You are wrong.

To the people in denial and thinking that HL2 will look better than PS3 games - wise up. Compare the best looking PC game in 1999 to the launch PS2 titles. Hell, compare any PC game released in 2001 with Metal Gear Solid 2. I believe Gran Turismo 3 and FFX was released in 2002, show me a 02' PC game that looks better than those. The PC just began surpassing the PS2 consoles in 2003, and has moved into a definite lead in 2004. Even still, the average new PS2 game looks better than the average PC game, because the cheap developers don't have to level it down to run on low end machines.

I may or may not post again in this topic. I get the feeling a lot of you are incredibly thick headed about your PC's and will blindly continue saying what you want to believe. I like my PC, I like it better than my PS2 - but I can look at it in an unbiased way and see the facts. Some of you are just blind - and I don't care enough to argue with those types of people.

 

[maleficarus™]

Lol diehard PC fanboy
PCs are multitasking machines, always have been and always will be. Consoles are gaming machines, and currently are more dominant now then they ever have been. So much so that some gamestops have completely removed a pc game rack. EBgames also gets fewer pc game sales than any of the consoles by themselves. Pretty much the only games that will stay on PC are RTS games, which are a dying breed anyway(gone are the days of starcraft and command and conquer). PCs crown jewels over the next year are both getting ported to the xbox, and anyone who has played a shooter on an xbox for longer than 5minutes will tell u its incredibly easy to do so. PC has been dying since ps2 was released. And when xbox showed the importance of online gameplay it will be safe to say that all 3 nextgen consoles will be power heavy in online games. Who really needs text chatting in games when everyone has voice chat? and no lag.

Few games are offering a good reason to continue playing PC games over console games. HL2 and DOOM3 will offer the best experiences on the PC, other than that there arent that many games on PC that ppl are hyped about

OMG I can't believe I just read that garbage online LOL

Dude you need to come out of the dark ages and learn something. The ONLY reason why it might look like PC games have disappeared from stores like EBgames in the mall is simply because for some really odd reason the game boxes shrank to the same size as the console boxes. So although it might look like there are fewer games. In fact there are the same amount just smaller boxes thus taking up less room. I personally could never understand the logic in shrinking PC game boxes because all it did was give the illusion that PC gaming was somehow dying. But fact of the matter is it's got even deeper. I mean have you played a game like Homeworld2? LOL Have you seen that game in high resolution with FSAA and AF? It's like realistic to the extreme. Or have you seen any screen shots of the upcoming EA game BF Vietnam? Did you look at the lush forests and flowing water scenes? Tell me what console can do that today? I'm not even going to mention HL-2 or Doom3.

I get the strong impression you either play on a real crappy PC or are the true die hard (and dying) console fan. :smoking:

Even looking at 2002-2003 games like BF1942 online. It's a wicked gaming experience that console can't even dream of giving its users. I mean I was at work talking to this 20 year old kid who is always talking about his PS2 in the staff room. I walk over to him and tell him that on the PC in the game BF1942 you can drive a tank. While you are driving that tank someone else from around the world is firing off its machine guns. He was like you serious? I said hell yea. I then went on to say that you can also be sitting way out on a mountain top as far as the eye can see with a sniper rifle; so far all you see is a little blob of a person. Again he couldn't believe a world that big and realistic. I told him only on the PC can you enter that world not on your PS2. He just looked down at the lunch table and said "yea someday I'm gonna get me a comp"

LOL

That's the thing guys. Most kids haven't experienced the PC online gaming experience yet. They have no clue the differences between playing in a virtual world in high resolution with people all over the world and sitting in from of you shiit TV with a game controller playing super mairo brothers...

PC has brought us the beginning of virtual reality. The WWW is that reality. Gaming inside this web is the end goal. PC is going to get us there. Not console..

 

[Zoorado]

To the people in denial and thinking that HL2 will look better than PS3 games - wise up. Compare the best looking PC game in 1999 to the launch PS2 titles.

Please refresh my memory, but I can't really think of any PS2 game in 1999 that looks as good as Quake 3 Arena.

Hell, compare any PC game released in 2001 with Metal Gear Solid 2.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein @ 1600 x 1200 pixels. 'Nuff said.

I believe Gran Turismo 3 and FFX was released in 2002, show me a 02' PC game that looks better than those.

You must be blind if you think the pixelated graphics of GT3 or FFX looks better than UT2003 at its highest settings and resolution. Seriously.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Thats another thats fallen from grace into chocolatey off-topic goodness

*moved*

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Actually to tell the truth I doubt even the Xbox could handle it.

I would be able to handle intermediate amounts of graphic capabilities (Refracting water, Bump mapping) because of its modifide GeForce3, the processor handles the AI and Physics system (and 733MHz is its minimum spec) so it may lag just about in that department

 

[Dedalus]

consoles are social devices, nothing more, and they always will be. PCs are where the real innovation and implementation is at. consoles have their market, PCs have theirs. do not mix the two as they're incompatible.

 

[Warbie]

consoles are social devices, nothing more, and they always will be. PCs are where the real innovation and implementation is at. consoles have their market, PCs have theirs. do not mix the two as they're incompatible.

That is so not true ............... PCs are home to tiring rehashes, very rarely does a game show any originality or innovation - let alone being fun.

Unless you mean the innovation is in the hardware and engines, in which case I agree with you. If you're talking about good games, I definately don't.

 

[Dedalus]

That is so not true ............... PCs are home to tiring rehashes, very rarely does a game show any originality or innovation - let alone being fun.

Unless you mean the innovation is in the hardware and engines, in which case I agree with you. If you're talking about good games, I definately don't.

i was partly referring to hardware and partly to games. how can you say there are no good games on pc? that's just absurd. the thing about pc games, is that they're slow burners most of them. console games will be fun for two months then in the bin they go. i have games i bought 7 freaking years ago that i still want to bust out and play.

anyway, i think the big thing with pc gaming is going to be the AI. there is no way consoles will ever have the number crunching power of a pc so the AI will flourish on PCs. consoles still have their place, and pcs have theirs. let's leave it at that eh.

 

[Warbie]

Please refresh my memory, but I can't really think of any PS2 game in 1999 that looks as good as Quake 3 Arena.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein @ 1600 x 1200 pixels. 'Nuff said.

You must be blind if you think the pixelated graphics of GT3 or FFX looks better than UT2003 at its highest settings and resolution. Seriously.

Come on - RTCW is my fave game of all time (online) but it isn't much to look at. Resolution and the no. of polygons flying about doesn't equal good gfx, it's the artistis that matter. I think UT2003 looks terribly cluttered and much prefer the look of many console games, imo of course. (anyhoo - the UT engine is terrible .... it doesn't actually feel like you're shooting ppl :/)

Infact many seem to think resolution is the be all and end all. This isn't always the case - quite often the higher the resolution the less solid the game feels, more angular/less organic. GTA, Prince of Persia, Broken Sword 3 (to name a few) all look much better when played on a console. After running all of these games on my pc, at the highest settings, the difference was clear. Especially with Prince of Persia - which paled in comparison to the humble GC version on a big tv.

 

[Warbie]

i was partly referring to hardware and partly to games. how can you say there are no good games on pc? that's just absurd. the thing about pc games, is that they're slow burners most of them. console games will be fun for two months then in the bin they go. i have games i bought 7 freaking years ago that i still want to bust out and play.

anyway, i think the big thing with pc gaming is going to be the AI. there is no way consoles will ever have the number crunching power of a pc so the AI will flourish on PCs. consoles still have their place, and pcs have theirs. let's leave it at that eh.

Oki

I agree what you're saying about pc games being slow burners, I'm still playing CS and Wolfenstein years after release.

As for the AI - we'll just have to wait and see. So far the superior number crunching power hasn't really been used.

(btw i'm not a console fanboy - just a disgruntled pc owner)

 

[smwScott]

Please refresh my memory, but I can't really think of any PS2 game in 1999 that looks as good as Quake 3 Arena.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein @ 1600 x 1200 pixels. 'Nuff said.

You must be blind if you think the pixelated graphics of GT3 or FFX looks better than UT2003 at its highest settings and resolution. Seriously.

The PS2 wasn't out in 1999, and I don't think Q3 was either (I could be wrong though). The only way I can answer that question is to tell you some of the really early PS2 games which look better than Q3 - Balders Gate: Dark Alliance. This game has bump mapping, reflection effects, extremely high polygons models, great water effects, great particle effects - and much more characters on screen. It looks better than Q3 in every way.

Metal Gear Solid 2 without a doubt looks much better than RTCW, what are you smoking?

Whether FFX and GT3 look better than UT2003 is open to opinion. The characters in FFX are miles above the crappy models of UT2003, the environments are also much larger and with a large draw distance. UT has some better effects than FFX though. I thikn GT3 looks better than UT2k3, but that's really hard to compare.

And just so you know - I've played these games totally maxed out on a computer, and the PS2 games on a normal TV.

 

[Shuzer]

FFX's environments are pre-rendered. That's why they look better..

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

q3 has horrible graphics at this time and I agree with Scott, MG2 had way better graphics but lacks the anti aliasing that only a pc can do, but it doesn't really matter that much to some people. MG2 was a breakthrough in visuals when it came out. Although FFX looks better than ut2k3, again, you really cant compare the two. Both are run on different engines etc. And about draw distances, arent the FFx scenes prerendered? I dont remmember, I know the older ones were I think. One game that was awesome in visuals was Morrowind which came out in 2002.

And I hope you aren't comparing the CG scenes cause those don't count .

 

[smwScott]

Actually it was a really big deal that the environments weren't pre-rendered. It was all fully polygonal and in many cases very interactive. It was the first Final Fantasy to have this feature. Even in the background it wan't pre-rendered, it was just a fairly low detail (but fully polygonal) scene that was way off in the distance and looked extremely impressive.

 

[mrchimp]

Well I wasn't comparing those games to Unreal 2 or the PC in general - I was comparing it to HL2. That's like you telling me that Max Payne 2 on PC looks better than the PS2 version (which it certainly does) - and me countering that with "But Gran Turismo 4 looks better than Max Payne 2" - it's totally off subject. And I seriously doubt Unreal 2 has more polygons than Jak 2 - which has 15,000 polygon character models (to make up for lack of normal mapping).

And to the guy who told me to "stop being stupid" - you're the stupid one. The PS2 share's some common ground with a PC but it is TOTALLY different. And your point is heavily flawed. Even if you killed all the detail, and lowered the resolution to 640 - you still wouldn't get games like GT4 - hell, even the early games running on it. You are wrong.

To the people in denial and thinking that HL2 will look better than PS3 games - wise up. Compare the best looking PC game in 1999 to the launch PS2 titles. Hell, compare any PC game released in 2001 with Metal Gear Solid 2. I believe Gran Turismo 3 and FFX was released in 2002, show me a 02' PC game that looks better than those. The PC just began surpassing the PS2 consoles in 2003, and has moved into a definite lead in 2004. Even still, the average new PS2 game looks better than the average PC game, because the cheap developers don't have to level it down to run on low end machines.

I may or may not post again in this topic. I get the feeling a lot of you are incredibly thick headed about your PC's and will blindly continue saying what you want to believe. I like my PC, I like it better than my PS2 - but I can look at it in an unbiased way and see the facts. Some of you are just blind - and I don't care enough to argue with those types of people.

First of all I didn't compare the games you mentioned to HL2 because there's no need to, you don't need to look to PC games of the futer to beat current console games. Also I'm sure you said "better than any PC..".

If Jak2 really does have a 15,000 poly count, it's wasted because it still looks crap. Hl2's 5000 poly characters look alot better and so do Unreal2's, stalkers, doom3's, FarCry's, PainKillers...

Lets compare some Screenshots:
PC:
http://www.planetunreal.com/images.asp?/unreal2/screenshots/shot02.jpg
http://www.planetunreal.com/images.asp?/ut2003/screenshots/ut2003p.jpg
http://www.codfiles.com/screenshots/29/news2/6060_3.jpg
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/gallery_image.asp?media_id=15&pic_id=8
http://www.strategyinformer.com/misc/screenshot-viewer.shtml?commandconquergenerals,10,3
http://www.gengamers.com/html/stal171.html
ttp://img.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Doom_3/Doom3_18.jpg

PS2:
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/jak2/screens.html?page=110
http://www.gaminghorizon.com/images/games/news/gt4051303_2003/gt4051303_1.jpg
http://img.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/Playstation_2/Metal_Gear_Solid_3/new_05.jpg

Well I really can't be bothered to post anymore.. but one thing I have noticed is that PS2 screenshots are always very small (wonder why :upstare: ) and the thing with small screenshots is they compress the detail makeing it look more complex than it really is. I know for a fact that on my TV there going to look alot worse, I also know that my PC games are going to look alot better when I run them full screen.

 

[NC|7]

Gabe talked about console ports in one of the recent interviews and he said they are still thinking about wich consoles to port to, thye only really have 2 choices (ps2 and xbox) if there is a console port xbox would be a deffinate, a ps2 version would take much longer to port and would not look anywhere near as good but it would be very possible, xbox would be able to support dx8.1 level features while ps2 would have to have a custom system made to replace dx

I dont think it would be in valv's best interest to spend the timeo n a ps2 port, they would be better off waiting for xbox2 and ps3

 

[Dougy]

who cares about Xbox's and PS2's?

The PC quite simply owns them both.

and the only people who think otherwise havent ever compared the two seriously.


the only good thing about consoles are the 1 off payments, you dont need to upgrade, but thats also a bad thing, the games are dearer they are ALL clones of eachother and they are all limited to aging hardware, nevermind the complete joke of a gamepad as a FPS/RTS/FS/SS controler.

and mulitplayer is far far far far far................................................. superior on the pc.

Battlefield 1942 (or whatever floats your boat) with 64 players rapes any console MP ever.