View Full Version : The Future Of Gaming
Moses
03-13-2007, 09:30 PM
http://www.gamersnation.co.uk/Core/article/sid=1384/title=Crysis:_Realistic_Graphics_vs_Real_Life.html
Here are some screenshots from Crysis' (the developer of Far Cry) new game engine.
The pictures on the left are real life and the ones on the right are computer-generated.
http://www.gamersnation.co.uk/images/core/upload/normal_1173746707445.jpg
http://www.gamersnation.co.uk/images/core/upload/normal_1173746706837.jpg
http://www.gamersnation.co.uk/images/core/upload/normal_1173746706225.jpg
http://www.gamersnation.co.uk/images/core/upload/normal_1173746704233.jpg
The future is very bright.....
Damix
03-13-2007, 09:43 PM
This is nothing groundbreaking, the ability to do this has been around for a long time.
Spore is the future
hmmm... pc-only initially? boy, and i thought those over-priced consoles were the only way to go... weird that my pc will still be better equipped to play games =P
This is nothing groundbreaking, the ability to do this has been around for a long time.
Spore is the future
But it hasn't ever come close to being this pretty. I'll admit that Spore looks like an amazing startegy game, but if you look at Crysis on DirectX 10, you can not tell the real pics from the fake pics.
Moses
03-13-2007, 10:03 PM
This is nothing groundbreaking, the ability to do this has been around for a long time.
Spore is the future
Are you kidding? Show me screenshots that are that life-like.
frogstomp
03-13-2007, 10:15 PM
hmmm... pc-only initially? boy, and i thought those over-priced consoles were the only way to go... weird that my pc will still be better equipped to play games =P
Well, seeing as it will still come to the 360, and I don't have to spend money to update my console evert couple months...
Saying a console is over-priced is completely subjective. I would need a new computer to play games... and then I would need to continually update my computer. I would rather spend 500 once, and be set for the next 5 years. I also do not have to worry about spyware/virus protection.
Well, seeing as it will still come to the 360, and I don't have to spend money to update my console evert couple months...
Saying a console is over-priced is completely subjective. I would need a new computer to play games... and then I would need to continually update my computer. I would rather spend 500 once, and be set for the next 5 years. I also do not have to worry about spyware/virus protection.
realistically, in about six months, i can spend about $300 to update my graphics card and be set for roughly the same amount of gaming almost exactly (and likely more). i also don't have to worry about spyware/virus protection because i'm not a nimrod who opens every exe and jpg that Joe Schmoe sends me.
it's also unlikely to look as good on the 360 (judging from past PC ports) or play as well.
cheesehead10790
03-13-2007, 10:21 PM
realistically, in about six months, i can spend about $300 to update my graphics card and be set for roughly the same amount of gaming almost exactly (and likely more). i also don't have to worry about spyware/virus protection because i'm not a nimrod who opens every exe and jpg that Joe Schmoe sends me.
it's also unlikely to look as good on the 360 (judging from past PC ports) or play as well.
Consoles dont lag. Online gameplay is better. I can play on my lcd tv. Better games come out on it and faster. I dont see the benefit of computer gaming at all. Also, screenshots always look better than the actualy game
frogstomp
03-13-2007, 10:22 PM
realistically, in about six months, i can spend about $300 to update my graphics card and be set for roughly the same amount of gaming almost exactly (and likely more). i also don't have to worry about spyware/virus protection because i'm not a nimrod who opens every exe and jpg that Joe Schmoe sends me.
it's also unlikely to look as good on the 360 (judging from past PC ports) or play as well.
********. If you buy a $300 graphics card, it will be outdated in 2 years, tops. And that's just a graphics card...
Past PC ports? Like Oblivion, which looked almost exactly as good on the 360, and is being upgraded to look even better now? The 360 is still not using all of it's potential.
As for it playing better, I don't really know what you're talking about.
Consoles dont lag. Online gameplay is better. I can play on my lcd tv. Better games come out on it and faster. I dont see the benefit of computer gaming at all. Also, screenshots always look better than the actualy game
nothing you said is in any vague way based in reality, but wonderful, wonderful attempt to dismiss everything in one go. next time, you might consider "research" and "fact" before posting things that simply aren't true.
someone447
03-13-2007, 10:24 PM
I can play on my LCD monitor, I have better controls for FPS. My computer doesn't lag any more than halo 2 lags when I play online. Graphics cards in computers are always better than the consoles. Computers are just more powerful and more flexible.
cheesehead10790
03-13-2007, 10:25 PM
Why dont you try to bring up the "benefits" of computer gaming instead of bashing the consoles.
cheesehead10790
03-13-2007, 10:27 PM
I can play on my LCD monitor, I have better controls for FPS. My computer doesn't lag any more than halo 2 lags when I play online. Graphics cards in computers are always better than the consoles. Computers are just more powerful and more flexible.
Ok even if alllll that is true, games take longer to come out on PCs. How long has Halo 2 been on xbox compared to PC? Well a long time since its still not out for computers. Thats probably the biggest benefit of having a console.
frogstomp
03-13-2007, 10:27 PM
I can play on my LCD monitor, I have better controls for FPS. My computer doesn't lag any more than halo 2 lags when I play online. Graphics cards in computers are always better than the consoles. Computers are just more powerful and more flexible.
Controls are completely subjective. I prefer my controller for FPS. The only thing I concede is that RTS are much better on PC.
Consoles power is deceptive, because they are completely based on gaming power (well, not the PS3... but whatever, i'm not arguing for the PS3). You seem to be basing a lot on last gen games...
********. If you buy a $300 graphics card, it will be outdated in 2 years, tops. And that's just a graphics card...
Past PC ports? Like Oblivion, which looked almost exactly as good on the 360, and is being upgraded to look even better now? The 360 is still not using all of it's potential.
As for it playing better, I don't really know what you're talking about.
almost. :roll: (yes, i know it doesn't work)
my graphics card will be outdated by upgrades i won't need to play recent games. by contrast, the 360 as a whole has been outdated for several months (in a pure hardware sense). your argument doesn't make any sense, given that you're using different standards for both pieces of equipment.
for instance, i can get a geforce 8800 series tomorrow for roughly $350. they will likely release an 8900 within roughly a year. that does NOT mean that games are no longer playable on my 8800. it doesn't mean they won't be playable when the 9000 series comes out. it doesn't even mean they'll necessarily look worse. it's the same idea as a console except that i have some degree of flexibility with my components. i'm not locked into my initial purchase.
also, it will play better on the pc. just like every console port ever has played better on it's original console. it's an issue of the original development of the game. if they're counting on a full keyboard, things will get iffy quickly with the relatively small number of buttons on a gamepad. the same holds true the other way. i'll absolutely admit that, while the pc version of halo wasn't awful, it was much better on the xbox (and this is coming from a dyed-in-the-wool keyboard and mouse guy).
frogstomp
03-13-2007, 10:28 PM
Ok even if alllll that is true, games take longer to come out on PCs. How long has Halo 2 been on xbox compared to PC? Well a long time since its still not out for computers. Thats probably the biggest benefit of having a console.
That's not true. It completely depends on the game.
Halo 2 came out for Xbox because it's an XBOX GAME.
Why dont you try to bring up the "benefits" of computer gaming instead of bashing the consoles.
why don't you whine because i shot down everything you said and you realized that i was right, you really didn't have any factual support for what you were saying? oh wait.
Ok even if alllll that is true, games take longer to come out on PCs. How long has Halo 2 been on xbox compared to PC? Well a long time since its still not out for computers. Thats probably the biggest benefit of having a console.
that's the dumbest thing you've said yet. when did half-life come out for the xbox? the pc? how about doom?
let's try making some arguments that make a reasonable degree of sense.
Damix
03-13-2007, 10:33 PM
More games come out earlier on the computer then on consoles.
Also controls are much better on computer, and you can have a controller on the computer.
Most games don't even support the USB keyboard on most consoles
frogstomp
03-13-2007, 10:34 PM
almost. :roll: (yes, i know it doesn't work)
my graphics card will be outdated by upgrades i won't need to play recent games. by contrast, the 360 as a whole has been outdated for several months (in a pure hardware sense). your argument doesn't make any sense, given that you're using different standards for both pieces of equipment.
for instance, i can get a geforce 8800 series tomorrow for roughly $350. they will likely release an 8900 within roughly a year. that does NOT mean that games are no longer playable on my 8800. it doesn't mean they won't be playable when the 9000 series comes out. it doesn't even mean they'll necessarily look worse. it's the same idea as a console except that i have some degree of flexibility with my components. i'm not locked into my initial purchase.
also, it will play better on the pc. just like every console port ever has played better on it's original console. it's an issue of the original development of the game. if they're counting on a full keyboard, things will get iffy quickly with the relatively small number of buttons on a gamepad. the same holds true the other way. i'll absolutely admit that, while the pc version of halo wasn't awful, it was much better on the xbox (and this is coming from a dyed-in-the-wool keyboard and mouse guy).
Ok, I understand your port argument. I was just confused, wondering if you meant all games that were on both played better on the PC (for your information, crysis is hardly a port to the 360... it's being developed individually for both the 360 and PC). But then I can make the same argument for the 360. This is a stalemate.
As for upgrades, while yes you don't have to buy a new computer to play, you have to buy a new computer to have the best gaming experience. It sucks having your friend playing the same game as you, but having better graphics/sound/gameplay. I don't have to worry about that for the 360. Also, chances are that in 2-3 years you *will* have to replace a few things to play the most current games. The 360 is supposed to have a 6 year span, so I don't have to worry about updates for 6 years.
As a side note, my 360 is also a lot more portable. If I feel like gaming at my friends, I can bring my 360 there and have it hooked up in like 3 minutes.
cheesehead10790
03-13-2007, 10:34 PM
that's the dumbest thing you've said yet. when did half-life come out for the xbox? the pc? how about doom?
let's try making some arguments that make a reasonable degree of sense.
Those games were initially created JUST for the PC. And the time it took to get those to the consoles is less than it takes games from consoles to get to PCs.
Halo was NOT created JUST for the xbox. They had the computer in mind at the time.
frogstomp
03-13-2007, 10:35 PM
that's the dumbest thing you've said yet. when did half-life come out for the xbox? the pc? how about doom?
let's try making some arguments that make a reasonable degree of sense.
Sure, bring up a game that existed before the Xbox was even thought of...
frogstomp
03-13-2007, 10:36 PM
Those games were initially created JUST for the PC. And the time it took to get those to the consoles is less than it takes games from consoles to get to PCs.
Halo was NOT created JUST for the xbox. They had the computer in mind at the time.
Halo was, at the very beginning, supposed to be a RTS. They then decided to launch it with their new console as a FPS. It was not intended to be for both after they made the decision to launch it with the Xbox.
As for upgrades, while yes you don't have to buy a new computer to play, you have to buy a new computer to have the best gaming experience. It sucks having your friend playing the same game as you, but having better graphics/sound/gameplay. I don't have to worry about that for the 360. Also, chances are that in 2-3 years you *will* have to replace a few things to play the most current games. The 360 is supposed to have a 6 year span, so I don't have to worry about updates for 6 years.
the best argument here is the one you didn't make: on a PC, game developers don't have to feel bound by a particular set of specs, so they can develop for any new hardware they want. conversely, on a console, they get what they get for the next several years. so developers have to actually learn to take advantage of the hardware, rather than simply updating.
you may have left that out because it's a bit of a double edged sword. if i'm willing to suffer through the medium graphics settings for a year or two, when i DO upgrade, i can either get the parts very cheap (if i stay just behind the bleeding edge) or get the full newest experience, with the best possible components. there's no doubt that every game for PC and the last xbox and ps2 looked FAR better on the PC. it's a simple fact of outdated hardware that was built before shader 2.0 was even really a twinkle in the developer's eye, let alone shader 3.0.
As a side note, my 360 is also a lot more portable. If I feel like gaming at my friends, I can bring my 360 there and have it hooked up in like 3 minutes.
if i were a bigger geek, i'd have a shuttle pc (sff) that's just as portable as a 360. luckily, i'm somehow not.
Sure, bring up a game that existed before the Xbox was even thought of...
i was sure i added a "2" to that, but whatever. the point is, realistically, the same.
cheesehead10790
03-13-2007, 10:45 PM
the best argument here is the one you didn't make: on a PC, game developers don't have to feel bound by a particular set of specs, so they can develop for any new hardware they want. conversely, on a console, they get what they get for the next several years. so developers have to actually learn to take advantage of the hardware, rather than simply updating.
you may have left that out because it's a bit of a double edged sword. if i'm willing to suffer through the medium graphics settings for a year or two, when i DO upgrade, i can either get the parts very cheap (if i stay just behind the bleeding edge) or get the full newest experience, with the best possible components. there's no doubt that every game for PC and the last xbox and ps2 looked FAR better on the PC. it's a simple fact of outdated hardware that was built before shader 2.0 was even really a twinkle in the developer's eye, let alone shader 3.0.
if i were a bigger geek, i'd have a shuttle pc (sff) that's just as portable as a 360. luckily, i'm somehow not.
Ok you have a valid point. But this is obviously going nowhere because its about opinions. You think all games look better on a PC and I think all games look better on the 360.
frogstomp
03-13-2007, 10:59 PM
i was sure i added a "2" to that, but whatever. the point is, realistically, the same.
Yeah, I was just making fun of you.
As for a shuttle PC, you'll have to pay more.
As for the whole "being bound by software", developers have stated multiple times that that is an issue of the past. I can go find links if you don't believe me.
*edit*
Well, in three years, it may become an issue. However, by that time the console would be cheap as borscht anyways.
PC vs Console is faaaar too subjective for me to argue any further. I don't like arguing technical things from a subjective standpoint... it makes no sense.
As for the whole "being bound by software", developers have stated multiple times that that is an issue of the past. I can go find links if you don't believe me.
what? even if you meant hardware, that doesn't make sense.
frogstomp
03-13-2007, 11:06 PM
what? even if you meant hardware, that doesn't make sense.
"Specs". ...
Borat
03-13-2007, 11:08 PM
Man, I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread ... but I just couldn't help myself. And then it completely fizzled and became a PC vs. Console battle. And like every other PC vs. Console thread, it became clearly pointless.
As an XBOX 360 lover, I say fight the good fight Frogstomp, even though it's pointless.
steelersfan43
03-14-2007, 12:04 AM
meh, dosnt look that great, you can easily tell the differece between it and real life.
comahan
03-14-2007, 12:30 AM
The only thing I use consoles for are sports games. I definitely prefer the computer for anything else. I cant stand FPS's on consoles.
Caddy
03-14-2007, 12:48 AM
It all boils down to personal preference and whicever one you feel more comfortable with. Personally i prefer Xbox 360, but thats just me.
Man_Of_Steel
03-14-2007, 01:22 AM
Thats looks insane, when and in what will it be implimented
that still doesn't really make a lot of sense. hardware itself (whether specs or not, which, through a number of processes can be total BS) absolutely binds the software that can eventually be run on it. if you're saying that software specs are a problem, i'm still not entirely sure what you mean, as that statement doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.
arguing PC vs. console from a technical standpoint isn't really a subjective argument. arguing that the console is still a good buy is, and isn't really completely relevant (it was sort of a shift from the original argument anyways). but it's more or less incontrovertible fact that PCs have the capability of being more powerful than any console at initial release and will be more powerful within a year of release. subjective is arguing whether or not that matters (something that wasn't really part of the argument except in passing).
Man, I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread ... but I just couldn't help myself. And then it completely fizzled and became a PC vs. Console battle. And like every other PC vs. Console thread, it became clearly pointless.
As an XBOX 360 lover, I say fight the good fight Frogstomp, even though it's pointless.
i'm glad you added your pointless opinion to this thread then. you really opened up my eyes. i also fail to see what, exactly, it "fizzled" from. please point out where it was an engaging discussion of anything. in the future, if you'd like to post about the original topic and the thread has shifted slightly, feel free to you know, actually post about the original topic. it's not really all that difficult.
Thats looks insane, when and in what will it be implimented
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=DGUS%2CDGUS%3A2006-15%2CDGUS%3Aen&q=crysis
frogstomp
03-14-2007, 10:19 AM
that still doesn't really make a lot of sense. hardware itself (whether specs or not, which, through a number of processes can be total BS) absolutely binds the software that can eventually be run on it. if you're saying that software specs are a problem, i'm still not entirely sure what you mean, as that statement doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.
arguing PC vs. console from a technical standpoint isn't really a subjective argument. arguing that the console is still a good buy is, and isn't really completely relevant (it was sort of a shift from the original argument anyways). but it's more or less incontrovertible fact that PCs have the capability of being more powerful than any console at initial release and will be more powerful within a year of release. subjective is arguing whether or not that matters (something that wasn't really part of the argument except in passing).
Developers have said that "the 360 is powerful enough that they won't have to feel limited for a long time." So that's what I mean. In the history of games, the console has been much weaker than the PC, however now that's shifting. Now, the console is just as, if not more powerful than the computer (considering that developers cannot always use the latest software, because not everyone is willing to buy latest and best technology. The game developers have to balance what the *majority* of their consumers have, and making an amazing game. The majority of people have a PC much weaker than the 360 or the PS3...for gaming.)
And yes, it is subjective. We're simply speculating on what will or will not be done in technology. We're speculating on what games will or will not be made. It's all a crapshoot. Obviously advances will be made, but you can never say exactly what they will be.
Anyways, I'll jsut say this: You called the console overpriced, but to get the exact same thing as a PC would be essentially the same, if not more. You need the OS (sure, you can steal one, as most people do... but technically I could steal the harddrive, controllers, etc, and buy the cheapest 360), you need more powerful everything because the computer is *never* simply running the game. Yes, the PC has the ability to upgrade, but that will still cost you money.
Splat
03-14-2007, 10:41 AM
I would rather play on a console any day of the week I like there controls better and just all around feel of the games better PC's might have better graphics but consoles have better game play IMO.
rchrd
03-14-2007, 12:11 PM
arguing PC vs. console from a technical standpoint isn't really a subjective argument. arguing that the console is still a good buy is, and isn't really completely relevant (it was sort of a shift from the original argument anyways). but it's more or less incontrovertible fact that PCs have the capability of being more powerful than any console at initial release and will be more powerful within a year of release. subjective is arguing whether or not that matters (something that wasn't really part of the argument except in passing).
From reading this thread from the start, I've gathered that the statement in bold really ends argument that I had been reading. It's completely correct and I possibly shouldn't be posting with the sole intent of licking someone else's arse but hey, there you go he's right.
VoteLynnSwan
03-14-2007, 01:47 PM
i like oblivion plays much better on the pc... and if my computer was actually gaming oriented, it would look a lot better too because i could put the resolution all the way up.
snuff
03-14-2007, 02:08 PM
I cant believe people argued the games... PC has like 10x1 the # of games.
Moses
03-14-2007, 02:41 PM
Developers have said that "the 360 is powerful enough that they won't have to feel limited for a long time." So that's what I mean. In the history of games, the console has been much weaker than the PC, however now that's shifting. Now, the console is just as, if not more powerful than the computer (considering that developers cannot always use the latest software, because not everyone is willing to buy latest and best technology. The game developers have to balance what the *majority* of their consumers have, and making an amazing game. The majority of people have a PC much weaker than the 360 or the PS3...for gaming.)
And yes, it is subjective. We're simply speculating on what will or will not be done in technology. We're speculating on what games will or will not be made. It's all a crapshoot. Obviously advances will be made, but you can never say exactly what they will be.
Anyways, I'll jsut say this: You called the console overpriced, but to get the exact same thing as a PC would be essentially the same, if not more. You need the OS (sure, you can steal one, as most people do... but technically I could steal the harddrive, controllers, etc, and buy the cheapest 360), you need more powerful everything because the computer is *never* simply running the game. Yes, the PC has the ability to upgrade, but that will still cost you money.
PCs have already passed consoles in terms of gaming power. This is an indisputable fact.
Consoles have some advantages but for the hardcore gamer PCs are the way to go. It's pointless to argue that consoles are better from a technical standpoint because that's simply false.
The only legitimate advantages of consoles are:
-Price of hardware (NOT games)
-Ease of use for newbies
-Portability
That's basically all I can think of.
BigDawg819
03-14-2007, 02:57 PM
Goldeneye for the N64 still rules I don't care what you say! :D
Splat
03-14-2007, 03:08 PM
Goldeneye for the N64 still rules I don't care what you say! :D
That and Mario Kart still own all!!
frogstomp
03-14-2007, 03:21 PM
PCs have already passed consoles in terms of gaming power. This is an indisputable fact.
Consoles have some advantages but for the hardcore gamer PCs are the way to go. It's pointless to argue that consoles are better from a technical standpoint because that's simply false.
The only legitimate advantages of consoles are:
-Price of hardware (NOT games)
-Ease of use for newbies
-Portability
That's basically all I can think of.
Obviously the PC can technically have more power, but there is no game that would use it. The 360 has enough power to be *more than* powerful enough for the next 2-3 years. After that, the PC will start getting games that the 360 may not be able to fully handle, but that's simply speculation.
frogstomp
03-14-2007, 03:24 PM
You know, this whole argument started with me saying that the 360 wasn't overpriced, and it has been stated multiple times in this very thread that it isn't. Hell, I think njx even said so.
How's that taste?
Borat
03-14-2007, 03:27 PM
i'm glad you added your pointless opinion to this thread then. you really opened up my eyes. i also fail to see what, exactly, it "fizzled" from. please point out where it was an engaging discussion of anything. in the future, if you'd like to post about the original topic and the thread has shifted slightly, feel free to you know, actually post about the original topic. it's not really all that difficult.
Wow man, you are so over-the-top, I love it though. I didn't want to "open your eyes" because this arguement is so overdone it's become stale and quite lame. It's like trying to argue how Chevy trucks are better than Fords. It's completely subjective and trying to argue it just makes you dizzy.
The thread fizzled because the post with the screen shots was awesome and I enjoyed seeing them. But it went downhill immediately when it turned into a PC vs. Console battle (ironically, the reason I was leery to even open this thread).
But, if it makes you feel better, though I am a 360 user (I've had nearly every console built including the biggest loser of them all - the Saturn) I think CPU gaming is better.
You know, this whole argument started with me saying that the 360 wasn't overpriced, and it has been stated multiple times in this very thread that it isn't. Hell, I think njx even said so.
How's that taste?
i would never agree with you about anything. take it back.
Wow man, you are so over-the-top, I love it though. I didn't want to "open your eyes" because this arguement is so overdone it's become stale and quite lame. It's like trying to argue how Chevy trucks are better than Fords. It's completely subjective and trying to argue it just makes you dizzy.
i disagree in principle, but that would likely be a far more pointless argument. at least someone finally didn't take everything personally.
The thread fizzled because the post with the screen shots was awesome and I enjoyed seeing them. But it went downhill immediately when it turned into a PC vs. Console battle (ironically, the reason I was leery to even open this thread).
i was assuming someone would eventually start posting about them again while i argued with frogstomp about the 360. *shrug*
Moses
03-15-2007, 11:30 AM
Obviously the PC can technically have more power, but there is no game that would use it. The 360 has enough power to be *more than* powerful enough for the next 2-3 years. After that, the PC will start getting games that the 360 may not be able to fully handle, but that's simply speculation.
That is simply not true. There are already games out that require more hardware power than PCs can provide. Of course Xbox will last for another 5 years or so but the graphics on PC within that time will be on a whole different level.
Big Mike
03-15-2007, 05:13 PM
Are you f-in kidding. All those pictures are real. If not, its like we might as well watch movies, those screenshots ARE NYCEEEEEEEEE.
Boston
03-15-2007, 05:18 PM
Are you f-in kidding. All those pictures are real. If not, its like we might as well watch movies, those screenshots ARE NYCEEEEEEEEE.
They still can't do the water very well.
Hurricane Ditka
03-15-2007, 05:30 PM
Isn't the new Far Cry going to be Vista only? I know something is, but I can't remember what.
yes, directx 10 is vista-only.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.