Consoles or PCs?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

What you think?

  • PC forever!! Consoles are just for those who don't even know how powerful PC's are.

    Votes: 22 45.8%
  • Consoles!! Specialized equipment is ALWAYS better.

    Votes: 6 12.5%
  • I don't care.

    Votes: 3 6.3%
  • Both! Specialization is for insects!

    Votes: 17 35.4%

  • Total voters
    48
&

"Sp!ke"

Guest
"And that means it wasn't a crap television because? I've been to retail electronics stores. I've seen their displays. Dirty monitors. Blurry screens. Bleeding and fading colors. Virtually no audio. They're nothing special."

Because it was an official Sony norway stand, so I THINK they would use something usefull(didnt see exactly what screen since most of it was covered with Sony logos..)

"Simple. There are different brands of graphics cards, as you yourself stated (nVIDIA, Athlon, etc), and of those brands, each has varying models (GeForce, GeForce 2, GeForce 3, etc), and of those models, each has varying capabilities (GeForce 2 MX, GeForce 2 GTS, GeForce 2 GTS Pro, GeForce 2 Ultra, etc). Not everyone has the same brand, make, and model, hence, PCs are not standardized. Developers cannot treat a system as specialized if it is not standarized first, which means that, while you could build a PC specialized for gaming (at a hefty cost, I might add), the games that you play on that system would not be specialized for your hardware and could not take advantage of everything your PC could do (which is why, even though the GeForce 3 is capable of pulling off quite a few fancy effects, most games don't use them).
Specialization works both ways. You can have specialized hardware, but if games aren't made to take advantage of it, it doesn't particularly matter. On the other hand, you can have games specialized to take advantage of a particular graphics card, but if the consumer doesn't have that graphics card, it won't make a bit of difference."

The GF3 features are quite new, and has only been avaliable to developers for a short while, and as you know it takes at least a year to make a game, so in a few months then we will begin to see GF3 enchanced games. And they do have standards: DirectX.
And many(all?) games take advantage of Intels MMX and AMDs 3dNow! instructions.


"You answered your own argument for me. The PS2 and PC versions of Outcast 2 are going to be practically indistinguishable (so says Appeal, and they should know), and that game is going to push the limits of what current PCs are capable of, so by default, the PS2 can match the graphics of a PC. I fact, it can exceed them. A PS2, mind you. Not an Xbox or GameCube. I have yet to see any PC RPGs that can match Final Fantasy X. I have yet to see any PC MMORPGs that can match Final Fantasy Online. I have yet to see any PC action games that can match Metal Gear Solid 2. I have yet to see any PC racing games that can match Gran Turismo 3 (you've got to be blind if you think that Grand Prix 3 is superior). I have yet to see any PC fighting games... I have yet to see ANY PC fighting games. Basically, the only PC games I've seen which are comparable to consoles are First-Person Shooters, and that's due to the fact that most console games of that genre are ports of PC titles.
And that's not even factoring cost into the equation which, unless you live in Norway, means that you'd be paying an additional $700 USD or more for a comparable PC.
By the way, you're still relying on the PS2 when comparing consoles to PCs. When exactly are you going to provide me with screenshots comparable to Rogue Leader II, Project Ego, or Dead or Alive 3?"

First of all; Do not trust a word coming out of Appeals mouth, outcast was supposed to be a game that could run on a Pentium 100Mhz, it barely looked like the screenshots on a P3 450...and when is it supposed to be released?
56kers: Beware!

Nice U2 pics(action game)
CGImage05-640.jpg


CGImage04-640.jpg


September04-640.jpg


shot_lores.jpg


The most powerfull polygen engine in the world:

republic004.jpg


http://pcmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/republic002.jp
g

Morrowind(RPG)

mwind009.jpg


mwind010.jpg


And to have something to compare U2 with; heres MGS2
metalge


"Who said anything about Homeworld: Cataclysm or Unreal Tournament? In case you didn't know, there are official sequels in development for both Homeworld and Unreal."
I said it seemed like you thought Hw and Unreals sequels was HwC and Ut, "respectively", and the fact that you had "forgotten" some other games official sequels(Q4) only enhanced the fact that you wouldnt want to admit that you actually were mistaken...

"The usual load time in Unreal Tournament, if I remember correctly, is around 20-30 seconds for each map. Also, taking a more recent example, the load times between maps in AvP2, another PC game, takes over a minute. Now THAT'S a nightmare."

I hope for youre sake that you dont remember correctly..., UT is one of the fastest loading games I have ever tried, with 5-10 sec loading, and Ive only tried the demo of AvP 2 and it didnt take more then 20-25 secs... And in Diablo 2 you only had to load 4 times...have you rememberd to defrag your HD lately ;)

How do you hyperlink pics from gamespot?!
Anyway MGS2pic
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/screens/0,11105,913941-629,00.html
 

DamienW

I'm no stranger to sarcasm, sir
Feb 4, 2001
1,678
0
0
Bayonne, France
Now for our JAVA programmer friends, here is the algorithm of this thread

Class endlessThread
{
Guy Keiichi = new Guy(Consoles);
Guy Spike = new Guy(PCs);

do
{
Keiichi.Post(Text, Screenshots);
Spike.Post(Text, Screenshots);
}
until ((Keiichi.agreesWith(Spike)) || (Spike.agreesWith(Keiichi)));

}

:p
Settle this, since no one of you will ever agree with the other
 
&

"Sp!ke"

Guest
"Class endlessThread "

So far on THIS page: 42886 words:D
 

Keiichi

Old Timer
Mar 13, 2000
3,331
0
0
"You'd simply reply with something equally ridiculous and nonsensical. So, really, what's the point?"
I rest my case.

Now, just for shits and giggles, and because I'm feeling frisky with Metal Gear Solid 2 only one day away, allow me to destroy your most recent argument as well...

Because it was an official Sony norway stand, so I THINK they would use something usefull(didnt see exactly what screen since most of it was covered with Sony logos..)
If you say so. All I can tell you is that the screenshots I've posted certainly don't look like shit, nor does it look like shit on my television.

The GF3 features are quite new, and has only been avaliable to developers for a short while, and as you know it takes at least a year to make a game, so in a few months then we will begin to see GF3 enchanced games. And they do have standards: DirectX.
And many(all?) games take advantage of Intels MMX and AMDs 3dNow! instructions.
Yes, and those instructions have been available for how many years now? I recall MMX being all the rage about 3 years ago, and just now developers are taking full advantage of them? Like I said, rather than specialize for a particular graphics card and leave other users out in the cold, PC developers are more inclined to water their games down so as to be playable on all configurations. Six months from now, games may be "enhanced" to take advantage of one or two of the GeForce 3's custom intruction sets, but will they take advantage of everything the GeForce 3 is capable of? No. That will probably take 2 or 3 years, at which point, GeForce 5's will more than likely be available and no games will be taking advantage of them. Hell, even the GeForce 2 isn't being taken full advantage of yet. Hardware T&L, one of the GeForce's top features, is still rarely used by developers.

And no, DirectX isn't a standard, because it relies on the Windows OS. What about users of Linux, or Mac OS, or one of the myriad of other operating systems available?

First of all; Do not trust a word coming out of Appeals mouth, outcast was supposed to be a game that could run on a Pentium 100Mhz, it barely looked like the screenshots on a P3 450...and when is it supposed to be released?
Oh, yeah, Appeal is only the company developing the fucking game, for Christ's sake. If anyone should know what it's capable of, it's them. The estimated minimum system requirements are a Pentium III 750MHz, 128MB RAM, and a T&L-capable video card with a minimum of 32MB of VRAM.

The game is due out in Q4 2002.

56kers: Beware!
I'm not saying those shots don't look good, but come on...

Strident (Xbox)
strident1.jpg


Project Ego (Xbox)
bbb2.jpg

bbb8.jpg


Enclave (Xbox)
bg44.jpg

bg38.jpg


The most powerfull polygen engine in the world:

republic004.jpg
Wow. The attention to detial is amzing. My jaw is litterally on the floor. Or, at least, it would be if that wasn't part of a work-in-progress CG cinema. The wireframes and blue fog kind of gave that away. Do you want to see what Republic: The Revolution really looks like?

repube3006.jpg


Five of the six shots in IGN's archived media section are taken from pre-rendered cinemas, of which the one you posted is included. Frankly, I don't see how you missed this fact, considering that the in-game shots were only an inch away.

I said it seemed like you thought Hw and Unreals sequels was HwC and Ut, "respectively", and the fact that you had "forgotten" some other games official sequels(Q4) only enhanced the fact that you wouldnt want to admit that you actually were mistaken...
Oh, I see. So, the fact that I failed to destroy your argument even more than I did means that I was mistaken and didn't want to admit it? :con:

I hope for youre sake that you dont remember correctly..., UT is one of the fastest loading games I have ever tried, with 5-10 sec loading, and Ive only tried the demo of AvP 2 and it didnt take more then 20-25 secs... And in Diablo 2 you only had to load 4 times.
I format my hard drive and install a fresh copy of Windows just about every month and defrag my hard drive every week. Like I said, my computer is optimized as well as it can be. And yes, Unreal Tournament takes approximately 15-25 seconds between maps. As for Aliens vs. Predator 2, the demo level is only a fraction of the full map (probably in the range of 1/6th it's total size). If it takes 25 seconds just to load that, then you can imagine how long it takes in the full version.

By the way, if Unreal Tournament is the fastest loading PC game you've ever seen with 5-10 seconds of load time, and the average console game takes approximately 3-5 seconds to load between levels, then by your own admition, consoles take less time to load than PCs.

If you'd just admit that, while PCs aren't best for gaming, that their broad range of applications and user flexibility more than make up for it, I'd gladly agree that PCs are a better buy. Hell, I love my PC. I wouldn't want to be without it. I spend most of my free time on the internet and I have quite a few games for it that I thought were excellent. But, when you claim that PCs are better than consoles specifically when it comes to gaming, I have a hard time letting that go, especially when you take into account that, on the average, a PC will cost you a minimum of three times more.

I've indulged this little debate so far simply to prove that consoles are capable of everything a PC is, but now I'd like to make my closing argument: Does it really matter? I'll be the first to admit that, graphically, Metal Gear Solid 2 doesn't hold a candle to games like Unreal 2, yet I'm infinitely more excited about Metal Gear Solid 2 than I am about Unreal 2, and I know, without a shred of doubt, that I'll have more fun playing Metal Gear Solid 2 than I will playing Unreal 2. Also, I believe, without a shred of doubt, that games like Project Ego, Strident, Enclave, and Dead or Alive 3 look better than anything the PS2 or PC could throw at them, yet I'm not excited about them at all. Graphics are nice to look at, but there's more to games than just pretty pictures.

Case closed.

-Keiichi
 

Keiichi

Old Timer
Mar 13, 2000
3,331
0
0
You guys can argue amongst yourselves all you like. I'm just saying that's the last you'll hear from me on the subject.

-Keiichi
 

DamienW

I'm no stranger to sarcasm, sir
Feb 4, 2001
1,678
0
0
Bayonne, France
Hey, i'm not arguing with anyone. I just try to add a touch of humour to a fight that makes me sad, since i like both consoles and PCs ... I think you misunderstood my purpose here, Keiiichi, i just wanted to say it's no use going on, that's all.... I don't argue... Geez, sorry if any of you felt hurt by me, it has never been my purpose.
 
&

"Sp!ke"

Guest
"Five of the six shots in IGN's archived media section are taken from pre-rendered cinemas, of which the one you posted is included. Frankly, I don't see how you missed this fact, considering that the in-game shots were only an inch away."
Who said I missed them;) ?

Anyway: PCs are best for gaming on three points:
1. 99,9% of the time, better graphics.
2. You can play ANY genre of games.
3. This may be just me, but I absolutely hate the controls(the console controls(the lack of control, in the controls...))

But if you like PS2 better then PC: I dont care, but dont come around saying "PC sux, it has crappy graphics compared to consoles"...
 

Rabid-pitbull

New Member
Oct 13, 2000
81
0
0
ok some of you guys spend too much time thinking of ways to argue...


all u bastards will buy the console, and keep ur pc's..

better? better is relevent, funny to see how excited you all get over such stupid topics. *cough Keiichi cough*;)