&
"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)
The most powerfull polygen engine in the world:
http://pcmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/republic002.jp
g
Morrowind(RPG)
And to have something to compare U2 with; heres MGS2
"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
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)
The most powerfull polygen engine in the world:
http://pcmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/republic002.jp
g
Morrowind(RPG)
And to have something to compare U2 with; heres MGS2
"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