Xbox 360

[dream431ca]

Can you like post a high resolution screen shot of your so called " waaayyy better than 360 graphics " since i really doubt that.

BF2 on PC with your stuff vs. UT 2007 on 360 ???

You must remember..there are people who will only like PC...no matter how powerful or how much better looking the graphics are on the consoles are. I like to call them PC fanboys. I don't like arguing with a fanboy because you can't. They start making fun of you personally after they have nothing more to say...of course when they start doing that, that means you win, because they can't think of a proper defence to the argument.

 

[Uriel]

OMFG, you people do not get it, UT2007 and BF2 are competely different. You have ABSOLUTELY HUGE MAPS on one game, and medium/small maps on the other. The number of players effects graphics too. You're not playing with 64 players on UT2007. Besides, one game was released before the other and one ISNT EVEN RELEASED.

And i must say, the comparison between RE4 and BF2 was the definition of idiocy. I mean Resident Evil doesnt even have complete 3d backgrounds.

 

[Garfield_]

We do only compare graphics quality, remember that.

 

[OCybrManO]

I never said there would be a difference in framerate :/ Monitors and tvs do not display images in the same way. Have a read - http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html (basically - a game that only runs at 30 fps will look much smoother on a tv than it will on a monitor)

'and ive seen plenty of jerky games that people play on their xbox or ps2 hooked up to their TVs'

Sure. I said TVs do not need high fps, that doesn't mean games won't look choppy if the rate is real low (Halo 2 and Perfect Dark spring to mind)

If you're playing an Xbox 360 game on your monitor, and the framerate drops, the effect will be far more noticable and choppy than if you were playing on a tv.

First, TV is traditionally filmed in an interlaced format, just as it is displayed... not converted from 30fps progressive into an interlaced signal. Each individual field (all the odd lines or all the even lines) update is an image from a different time. A full frame is two fields from the same time. So, it's not really running at 30fps or 60fps. It's running at 60Hz and 60 fields per second. There's a difference. TV games render a new field for every refresh. That's why it has the fluidity of 60fps... because there is an update 1/60 of a second... just as a game running at 60fps. The benefit is that it requires less processing power, but the downside is that it sacrifices detail.

The smoothing factor observed in real video comes from motion blurring caused by the way the camera's light sensing and recording mechanisms gather and store light information... not because the signal is interlaced. Interlacing 30 full frames per second was only useful because it decreased the amount of bandwidth required to send a signal with a high enough refresh rate to prevent eye strain from flickering (not as much of an issue in dark theaters with very bright screens, because of the anatomy of the eye) and it cut the cost of the equipment needed to record the video.

Now, interlacing hurts more than it helps... since bandwidth isn't much of a problem. If the transmission method can handle the added strain of progressive scan at the same refresh rate (so we're talking 60 fields, or half-frames, per second vs 60 frames per second... not the 60 fields per second of TV with the 24 frames per second of film used in theaters) the result is actually slightly smoother motion with twice as many vertical lines to display detail in each frame.

The reason some games run slower in 480p than 480i is that the system doesn't have the fillrate to handle rendering twice the pixels (because, power wise, interlacing is like running at half the resolution of progressive scan). That's being corrected in the next-gen consoles, with the Xbox 360 designed to run flawlessly on at least 720p in every game... and the PS3 promising support for at least 1080p in every game. Now, since progressive-scan HDTV resolutions work the same way as normal monitor resolutions it will look just as sharp and smooth on your monitor as it will on your HDTV.


EDIT:

OMFG, you people do not get it, UT2007 and BF2 are competely different. You have ABSOLUTELY HUGE MAPS on one game, and medium/small maps on the other. The number of players effects graphics too. You're not playing with 64 players on UT2007. Besides, one game was released before the other and one ISNT EVEN RELEASED.

You don't know much about UE3 and the games which will be using it... do you? I suggest you read up on it before you tell us what it can and can't do. It uses streaming technology that can handle maps much larger than even BF2... in fact, as large as you can fit on your hard drive. It is also supposed to support more than 64 players, IIRC. UT2007 is supposed to have a gametype based on Onslaught but with maps that are many times larger than the largest ones seen in UT2004. The sheer magnitude capable with UE3 (in addition to the impressive graphics and physics) is why it was chosen to run the upcoming MMORPG, Huxley. That's also part of the reason why Sony are licensing the engine making it available, in evaluation version form, for the PS3 development community as part of the PS3 software development kit.

 

[Uriel]

Yet my point still stands, one game is RELEASED, the other IS NOT. You cannot compare different games, unless they are built on the SAME engine or they are ported to other systems. This isnt about comparing games, you CANNOT do that (unless they are VERY similar in gameplay), its about comparing PS3/X-Box/PC.

And as I understand it, UE3 (or the next unreal tournament/championship) will support a max of 16 players on a NON-dedicated server.

 

[Warbie]

First, TV is traditionally filmed in an interlaced format, just as it is displayed... not converted from 30fps progressive into an interlaced signal. Each individual field (all the odd lines or all the even lines) update is an image from a different time. A full frame is two fields from the same time. So, it's not really running at 30fps or 60fps. It's running at 60Hz and 60 fields per second. There's a difference. TV games render a new field for every refresh. That's why it has the fluidity of 60fps... because there is an update 1/60 of a second... just as a game running at 60fps. The benefit is that it requires less processing power, but the downside is that it sacrifices detail.

The smoothing factor observed in real video comes from motion blurring caused by the way the camera's light sensing and recording mechanisms gather and store light information... not because the signal is interlaced. Interlacing 30 full frames per second was only useful because it decreased the amount of bandwidth required to send a signal with a high enough refresh rate to prevent eye strain from flickering (not as much of an issue in dark theaters with very bright screens, because of the anatomy of the eye) and it cut the cost of the equipment needed to record the video.

Now, interlacing hurts more than it helps... since bandwidth isn't much of a problem. If the transmission method can handle the added strain of progressive scan at the same refresh rate (so we're talking 60 fields, or half-frames, per second vs 60 frames per second... not the 60 fields per second of TV with the 24 frames per second of film used in theaters) the result is actually slightly smoother motion with twice as many vertical lines to display detail in each frame.

The reason some games run slower in 480p than 480i is that the system doesn't have the fillrate to handle rendering twice the pixels (because, power wise, interlacing is like running at half the resolution of progressive scan). That's being corrected in the next-gen consoles, with the Xbox 360 designed to run flawlessly on at least 720p in every game... and the PS3 promising support for at least 1080p in every game. Now, since progressive-scan HDTV resolutions work the same way as normal monitor resolutions it will look just as sharp and smooth on your monitor as it will on your HDTV.

I stand corrected (said the man in the orthopedic shoes ) I didn't realise this was the case. Does that mean it may look smoother on a standard tele? (I havne't purchased my hdtv yet)

 

[Cole]

So, it's not really running at 30fps or 60fps. It's running at 60Hz and 60 fields per second.

Fields per Second = Fps
Frames per Second = Fps
Muahahahahahahhahaha

 

[Warbie]

And i must say, the comparison between RE4 and BF2 was the definition of idiocy. I mean Resident Evil doesnt even have complete 3d backgrounds.

eh?

You said, 'I find it funny that anyone here thinks 360 graphics could ever possibly look better than current PC graphics'. Did you mean support as many players, or cater for maps of a certain scale etc etc instead of 'look'?

From an aesthetic point of view, I think RE4 looks better than BF2. (RE4 is in 3d btw) I certainly wasn't comparing like for like.

What game we think looks better is subjective. The most impressive visuals i've seen in years is in Okami on the PS2.

 

[OCybrManO]

Fields per Second = Fps
Frames per Second = Fps
Muahahahahahahhahaha

Oops. I went through changing the instances of "fps" into the longer versions "fields per second" and "frames per second" because I knew it would get confusing for some people. I guess I missed a couple. :E

 

[Garfield_]

Now, since progressive-scan HDTV resolutions work the same way as normal monitor resolutions it will look just as sharp and smooth on your monitor as it will on your HDTV.

So you are saying that if i use my 360 with my PC monitor it will look just as good and sharp as it does on HDTV ?

 

[Cole]

Oops. I went through changing the instances of "fps" into the longer versions "fields per second" and "frames per second" because I knew it would get confusing for some people. I guess I missed a couple.

lol . I knew what you ment. I see something and I crack down on it .

 

[Sanius]

Alright dude, before you go off ditching your PC like an ungratful bastard, think about your TV. The Game may look good, but it wont look much better than a ps2 game if you're playing on a crappy screen. And eventually, the PC will outrun and spank the console until the next console comes out. Its happened before.

What are you, a moron? Your TV doesn't matter at ALL, unless it's made in the 1960's. Seriously.
It's really hard to understand how stupid most PC gamers are. Seriously, PC gaming isn't always the most powerful. Have fun spending $1000 on your next PC upgrade.

I don't mean to piss off PC gamers, i'm one myself. But I can't stand the type of PC gamer who goes out of his way to make consoles look bad "Oh look, you have to play with a joystick!"

 

[Garfield_]

I dont like joystics or gamepads, but i found this the cheapest possible way to get to play the next gen games
Now i have a few new questions.

This Xbox 360, is it possible to play it with like a 19" LCD monitor that i use for PC games, if how will the quality be ?
Can i use my newly bougth Megaworks 250D for 360 ?

 

[Sanius]

I think you can play it on your monitor with a 3rdparty item

 

[OCybrManO]

So you are saying that if i use my 360 with my PC monitor it will look just as good and sharp as it does on HDTV ?

If you connect it in such a way that it doesn't degrade the signal, yes.

However, if they don't release a VGA connecter it might be expensive to do it ($70-100 if you already have the monitor). You would have to buy their HDTV component video cables then run those to a component to vga transcoder... like this or this.

 

[Garfield_]

Yeah its worth it, im not going to buy a HDTV and as far as i know using a PC monitor makes the quality better and sharper, but will it look laggy or something ?

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Dont get a new PC, just upgrade it

Upgrading costs more than buying a whole new computer :hmph:

 

[Uriel]

What are you, a moron? Your TV doesn't matter at ALL, unless it's made in the 1960's. Seriously.
It's really hard to understand how stupid most PC gamers are. Seriously, PC gaming isn't always the most powerful. Have fun spending $1000 on your next PC upgrade.

I don't mean to piss off PC gamers, i'm one myself. But I can't stand the type of PC gamer who goes out of his way to make consoles look bad "Oh look, you have to play with a joystick!"

Fraid so bub, Take your normal TV, use your S-Video hook up, and play the same game. Ive tried this with Halo. Now take a screenshot from a game you see on the web, compare that screenshot with the game on your TV. See the difference??

Now, I dont have anything against Consoles (cept X-Box cuz of that bastard Bill Gates who I refuse to give money to until he craps out a good OS), I own a Gamecube. But never would I sell my computer or ditch it for a console. You get so much more out of a PC.

And I'm hoping when the new consoles are released that it may be possible to duke it head to head with different systems. Then I can say "Oh look, you have to play with a joystick!".

 

[Warbie]

You must admit though, the pc only cater for a small variety of video games. For most genres you have to have a console to experience.

 

[Axyon]

I think you can play it on your monitor with a 3rdparty item

No, VGA connectors are first party, and may even be included with the console.

 

[CptStern]

What are you, a moron? Your TV doesn't matter at ALL, unless it's made in the 1960's. Seriously.
It's really hard to understand how stupid most PC gamers are. Seriously, PC gaming isn't always the most powerful. Have fun spending $1000 on your next PC upgrade.

I don't mean to piss off PC gamers, i'm one myself. But I can't stand the type of PC gamer who goes out of his way to make consoles look bad "Oh look, you have to play with a joystick!"

sorry but I have to agree with that other guy to an extent ..there's a world of difference between consoles and pc's


compare this ps2 screen of Bf2 Modern Combat

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/a...lefield-2-modern-combat-20050408000306941.jpg


and then look at this screen of Battlefield 2 for the pc

http://internetgames.about.com/library/screen/nbf2scr14.htm


notice that the ps2 version's HUD is a simplified version of the pc version


like it or not console games are usually dumbed down versions of their pc counterparts ..that's because they're made to appeal to a wide range of gamers ..from casual to hardcore, they want to make it accesible to all ..whereas you have to be a bit more sophisticated a gamer to play pc games ..what with all the updates, tweaking etc


both systems have their place ..I prefer pc's ..others prefer consoles ..to each his own



oh and I wont be getting an xbox360 ....most of the games will be released on pc anyways ..I'll have a long hard look at ps3 when it comes out

 

[Axyon]

sorry but I have to agree with that other guy to an extent ..there's a world of difference between consoles and pc's


compare this ps2 screen of Bf2 Modern Combat

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/a...lefield-2-modern-combat-20050408000306941.jpg


and then look at this screen of Battlefield 2 for the pc

http://internetgames.about.com/library/screen/nbf2scr14.htm


notice that the ps2 version's HUD is a simplified version of the pc version


like it or not console games are usually dumbed down versions of their pc counterparts ..that's because they're made to appeal to a wide range of gamers ..from casual to hardcore, they want to make it accesible to all ..whereas you have to be a bit more sophisticated a gamer to play pc games ..what with all the updates, tweaking etc


both systems have their place ..I prefer pc's ..others prefer consoles ..to each his own



oh and I wont be getting an xbox360 ....most of the games will be released on pc anyways ..I'll have a long hard look at ps3 when it comes out

I hate taking sides on this issue, but your argument kind of gets thrown out when you realise that BF2 is releasing on the X360 without any dumbing down, and most probably some graphical improvements.

 

[Nabobalis]

That is one ugly Hud

 

[Gargantou]

I want a HDTV from Samsung, but they're so damn expensive over here, a 26" one is 1,300 USD.:\
Stupid Sweden...

 

[Garfield_]

What is the best to play on a 19" LCD monitor for PC's or a 28" CRT TV, maybe widescreen, the price is almost the same on both of these in Sweden and i dont really care about the screen size, just the quality, sharpness etc.

 

[CptStern]

I hate taking sides on this issue, but your argument kind of gets thrown out when you realise that BF2 is releasing on the X360 without any dumbing down, and most probably some graphical improvements.

the xbox 360 version is BF2: Modern Combat ..as far as I can tell it's the same as the xbox and ps2 versions but with better graphics ...I'll have to take your word for it that it is indeed a more robust version cuz I cant find any screens with the hud

 

[Axyon]

the xbox 360 version is BF2: Modern Combat ..as far as I can tell it's the same as the xbox and ps2 versions but with better graphics ...I'll have to take your word for it that it is indeed a more robust version cuz I cant find any screens with the hud

There's no confirmation that the X360 is getting Modern Combat, in fact, most signs point toward it getting BF2. If it did get MC, there'd be no doubt that it would be totally revamped and vastly improved.

 

[CptStern]

it is Modern Combat

it's called BF2: Modern Combat


http://www.talkxbox.com/game802.html


but again I cant find anything that says it'll be any different than the ps2 and xbox versions

this says that they're essentially the same with better graphics:

"The Xbox 360 version supports more players online at one time (we were unable to ascertain an exact number), a handful of online cooperative modes, and online commander and squad leader views. Another online feature that's planned, if Microsoft supports backward compatibility, is the ability to play your Xbox 360 version against a friend who's got the Xbox version"

they'd have to be the same game if that were possible

 

[Garfield_]

This cant be 360 grapihcs http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/a...lefield-2-modern-combat-20050408000306941.jpg

 

[CptStern]

i think that's the ps2

 

[Garfield_]

Ohh that explains the ugly gfx =)

 

[OCybrManO]

The lack of complexity in gameplay stems from the relative simplicity of the controller... not because the console gamers are necessarily less intelligent or "sofisticated." You just don't have enough keys on a controller to duplicate the controlls of BF2. Controllers have... what... at most about ten buttons and a couple of sticks? Just with my left hand I've got quick access to like 25+ keys. Then, on the mouse I have 4 buttons and a scroll wheel that can be clicked, too. Also, the HUD's simplicity could be caused, in part, by the TV's low resolution. You have a few options: Take up a large portion of the screen to show the same information, make everything small but unintelligeble, or cut down on the amount of information supplied to the player at any given moment.

 

[Garfield_]

Some people wont be playing games like BF2 on consoles since it kinda sucks without a mouse and keyboard, the mouse itself represents the gun and the keyboard legs etc.
with a console controll its like playing flight simulators with a steeringwheel. Im only buying my 360 to play games like Alan Wake nothing more.

 

[CptStern]

The lack of complexity in gameplay stems from the relative simplicity of the controller... not because the console gamers are necessarily less intelligent or "sofisticated." You just don't have enough keys on a controller to duplicate the controlls of BF2. Controllers have... what... at most about ten buttons and a couple of sticks? Just with my left hand I've got quick access to like 25+ keys. Then, on the mouse I have 4 buttons and a scroll wheel that can be clicked, too. Also, the HUD's simplicity could be caused, in part, by the TV's low resolution. You have a few options: Take up a large portion of the screen to show the same information, make everything small but unintelligeble, or cut down on the amount of information supplied to the player at any given moment.

I agree that all plays a big part of it ...but console games are designed for the casual gamer ...it's meant to be accesible to all types of players, whereas with pcs genres are more well defined. Probably why rts' arent all that popular on consoles

 

[Axyon]

it is Modern Combat

it's called BF2: Modern Combat


http://www.talkxbox.com/game802.html


but again I cant find anything that says it'll be any different than the ps2 and xbox versions

this says that they're essentially the same with better graphics:

"The Xbox 360 version supports more players online at one time (we were unable to ascertain an exact number), a handful of online cooperative modes, and online commander and squad leader views. Another online feature that's planned, if Microsoft supports backward compatibility, is the ability to play your Xbox 360 version against a friend who's got the Xbox version"

they'd have to be the same game if that were possible

Read the rest of the IGN preview that you linked to. How are they supposed to be the same game if the Xbox 360 version supports more players and implements more features? Heck, the bloody game sounds exactly like BF2 with a different name!

 

[CptStern]

I dont know ...it makes little sense ..it would have to be the same game if both xbox and xbox360 players can play on the same servers

 

[OCybrManO]

I agree that all plays a big part of it ...but console games are designed for the casual gamer ...it's meant to be accesible to all types of players, whereas with pcs genres are more well defined. Probably why rts' arent all that popular on consoles

... and, yet, turn-based strategy/combat like RPG combat and Advance Wars do well on consoles. Once again, I think it's the control scheme. RTS games really benefit from a keyboard & mouse combination. You need fast and accurate movement combined with a lot of buttons/hotkeys for various commands to get the full effect of an RTS with a lot of units and buildings. That's the way I remember it from playing RTS games on the N64 (StarCraft and Command & Conquer). Now, if it's a game like Freedom Fighters or Brothers in Arms, where you only have control over a few people including yourself and you only have to give simple commands... it works much better.

 

[DreadLord]

BF2 on PC with your stuff vs. UT 2007 on 360 ???

Nope, but UT2007 on PC vs UT2007 on 360??? PFFFT.

No I'm not a PC fanboy, I'll be buying a 360 and PS3 just as i bought an xbox and PS2. But the fact of the matter is, until consoles BECOME PC's they won't have comparable graphics.

Don't forget you're playing on TV's, which are mostly 640x480. And don't use the 360 can be hooked up to a monitor defense, because no one will and you damned well know that.

 

[CptStern]

... and, yet, turn-based strategy/combat like RPG combat and Advance Wars do well on consoles. Once again, I think it's the control scheme. RTS games really benefit from a keyboard & mouse combination. You need fast and accurate movement combined with a lot of buttons/hotkeys for various commands to get the full effect of an RTS with a lot of units and buildings. That's the way I remember it from playing RTS games on the N64 (StarCraft and Command & Conquer). Now, if it's a game like Freedom Fighters or Brothers in Arms, where you only have control over a few people including yourself and you only have to give simple commands... it works much better.

but that's my point ..it's simplified ...Brothers in Arms is a good example ...the multiplayer lends itself well to consoles but is dreadfully under powered as a pc mp game as most modern pc games accomodate 32 players or more

 

[Garfield_]

No one has answered my question about 28" CRT TV vs. 19" LCD monitor, which of these will bring the best quality in games, i dont care about the size just quality =)