HL2 not for PS2. PC and XBox only at this point

[Razorscott2YK]

I got both an xbox and a pc, coz some games are released on console before they are released on pc. Splintercell is one of my fav titles while unreal 2 is pretty good on pc. It varies from game to game but i thought that the xbox version of splintercell comared to pc was a pretty even match. You guy's may think otherwise...

-Razor2YK

 

[Davis]

Originally posted by phantomdesign
When the PS3 comes out, it'll be between $350 and $500. I could build a computer equivelant to PS2 for $150, but you also get the other quirks of a computer like internet, word processing, any anythign else.

you don't know how much the ps3 will cost when it comes out (or even if it will come out at all). you could not build a computer equivelant to a ps2 for $150 because you can't even begin to compare a ps2 (or any console) to a pc. i mean look at the xbox. it has a 700 mhz procesor and a graphics card that is similar to a geforce 3. you find me a 700 mhz pc with a geforce 3 that can run games that look as good as the xbox. hell, splinter cell runs better on an xbox then a 2.4 ghz machine with a geforce 5600 ultra.

 

[Davis]

Originally posted by smwScott
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/silenthill3/screens.html?page=271

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/silenthill3/screens.html?page=265

It looks even better in motion and when you're playing. PS2 graphics don't suck, the character models in games like Silent Hill 3 are higher poly and more detailed than Half-Life 2. Also, the only game that can rival the lighting effects of Silent Hill 3 is Doom 3. You show me a screenshot of one PC game that is out now and is better than Silent Hill 3.

HL2 probably could be done on PS2, but they would have to re-work the ENTIRE architecture of the engine. Also there's no chance it would look as good. The PS2 could do things like lighting effects and character models easily and take an almost non-existant performance hit, but it can not handle DX9 shaders, render high resolution textures, or do anti-aliasing. It would still look very good, and if they spent the time on it better than the PC version in a few areas, but the PC version would be undeniably better.

The X-BOX is an extremely easy port. It makes sense to put it on this since it is essentially an cheap PC in a box. They don't have to make very many changes to the engine architecture and have already got the programming for lighting and other effects. It could not do any DX9 effects, but would still look decent and be cheap enough to be worth porting.

The thought of releasing HL2 on PS3 is stupid. HL2 would look like absolute crap compared to other PS3 games. Just look at the Half-life port on PS2, its been improved in many areas since the original but it still looks like total crap compared to other PS2 games. If they're going to release it on consoles they need to do it next-gen or re-make it for the next next-gen consoles.

whilst I agree that the models in silent hill 3 are great, they have EXTREMLEY poor animation, not to mention claws instead of hands. and your claim that the "models in sh3 are higher poly then models in hl2" is un-educated and ignorant. and if you want to see a game with good lightning effects and models on the pc take a look at splinter cell or raven shield 3.

 

[Davis]

Originally posted by creationist
ps2 is teh gay... all consoles are teh gay..
you know why? unless you have a high def tv, the max resolution of a normal tv is like, what, 640x480 or something, which is nothing compared to 1600x1200 that a computer monitor can reach. thats the only reason that i dont like consoles, that and the fact that i dont have my beloved wasd.

if you are playing on a 68 cm tv (sorry, im an aussie) and sitting 3 metres away from it, you don't NEED any more then 640 x 480 because thats around how much reoloution someone with 20/20 vision can see at that distance. ill give you an example. play a game at 640 x 480 on your pc, and you will probably be able to see quite a bit of pixalation. now move back 3 feet...

 

[Davis]

Originally posted by phantomdesign
Consoles suck because....

1. Current computers are always at least 1.5x as fast as the console when the console comes out. Time only increases that distance.

Wrong. The xbox, gamecube and even the ps2 can still hold their own against the latest pc games graphically. And you seem to forget that not everyone who has a pc has the latest gear. And because devlopers are constanly working on the same hardware, they can develop ways around its limitations and create things you wouldn't think possible (compare a ps2 launch title to a game like sh3, ratchet and clank, grand turismo 3...)

2. Current computer video cards are always at least 6 months ahead.

But people don't always have the current video card/best video card. I know alot of my friends are still using a geforce mx 400 or gf4 mx 440.

3. 640x480? Who needs to say more.

See my post above. Besides, unless you have a relativley new pc you are probably going to need to run half-life 2 at 640 x 480 to get a decent framerate.

4. 4 controllers on one screen=320x240=can't see shit. There are computer games with split screen, but computer users just hook up to lan/internet and play against 32+ players @ high res.

The xbox and ps2 both have online play. Theres no lag when playing offline with friends. And not everyone has two or more computers hooked up to a network for lan gaming. And people generally aren't going to act like dickheads when they are in punching range.

5. You cant MOD console games.

This is a valid point, and one of the biggest drawbacks of console games, although the xbox and ps2 have downloadable content.

6. You cannot have the same level of control on a console as you can on computer. I'd love to play counterstrike against 5 people teamed up on a console. Hell, if any of you have ever seen this movie... http://www.gamershell.com/download_2955.shtml ...I can guarantee you that 80% of those tricks are impossible on a console (and I didn't modify the handling).

That is a double edged sword. The mouse and keyboard may be good for first person shooters and strategy games, but console style controls are superior for platform, sports, racing and console rpgs. But you can buy conventional console style controlers for pc and visca versa with keyboards/mice.

7. Multiplayer on a console shares the same speakers. You don’t know who's sound is who's.

This can be annoying, but you don't even have the option of playing split screen with virtually all pc games.

8. Consoles destroy videogames with their inferiority. GTA3 & GTA VC graphics sucked cuzz they were primarily PS2, then ported to PC.

I doubt gta 3/vc would look much better if it had been developed on the pc from the begining, but that is just speculation.

BTW, HL2 on XBOX will be shit.
1. Read the list above
2. When I meet any HL2 player on XBOX, they’ll never be able to kill me.
3. The graphic effects are going to be shit.
4. (To the song “I aint’ got no…sat-is-fact-ion”) You ain’t got no…MOD-ifi-cat-ions

I don't think you are in a position to comment on the xbox version of hl2 because you haven't played it.

 

[Davis]

Originally posted by phantomdesign
I build kick ass computers for $500.

GeForce4 TI4200 or better
2.6 GHZ (AMD)
LAN
CDRW
DVD
60GB
6.1 surround
Wireless Keyboad+Optical Mouse+Sidewinder Joystick
17"Monitor w/ 1280x1024 or better.

compared to...

$400 console
$450+ TV w/ 640x480
Total=$850+
PWNED!!!!!

nice exageration. most people already have a tv. consoles are not $400. the gamecube is $99, and I believe the xbox and ps2 are $179. and while most people already have a pc, they may not have a pc that can play the latest games.

 

[Davis]

Originally posted by phantomdesign
Bottom line: PCs are supperior. Consoles have some advantages, but computers have a shit load more. You can point out that some of you already have a TV, but I'd also like to point out that you are currently typing on a computer.

Bottom line: consoles and pcs are very different, and both have their pro's and cons. Oh and I'm typing on a web tv.

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by Davis

See my post above. Besides, unless you have a relativley new pc you are probably going to need to run half-life 2 at 640 x 480 to get a decent framerate.

Are you kidding me....?


less than a tenth of a % of people that play hl2 will play at that resolution.......

 

[Serious Sam]

I think it's ironic to see a post critisizing console fanboys when a good bit of this forum has been set upon by arrogant PC users who think they've got a serious case of Deus Ex Machina (and I'm not talking about the game). In the same breath, it's refreshing to see PC users who also enjoy playing on consoles, "primitive" as the hardware migh be.

But good grief, will some of you guys lay off of the current generation of consoles already? For cryin' out loud... even if HL2 were out already, I sure as hell couldn't play it on the Sega Dreamcast I'm using to web surf right now. I won't be able to even think about HL2 or D3 until next year when I get my tax refund and buy a PC, so until then I'm looking forward to a decent, playable Xbox version of both.

PC > Cosoles. Fine. Agreed. Do I care? No.