Unreal Tournament on the PS2 looks better than the PC version.

[Arkive]

Well, I gotta say, if I can plug my USB mouse and kb into it, hook it into my cable modem (or preferably branch off from a hub or router), download maps, configure my settings the way I want (i.e. voice/text binds, etc.), and connect to online games with PC players...then you can bet I'll get one. Since UT came out I have found myself spending a lot of time tweaking this and that, downloading the latest detonator drivers, troubleshooting lockups, etc. I'm a stickler for graphics, so if it doesn't look as good as it does on my PC, then I'll likely pass, but if it's close and there's no tweaking needed...you can bet I'll jump on the bandwagon.

Jeff

 

[Watchdog]

I agree. In one year when my sys starts to become obsolete, I'm planning on getting an xbox. I'm going to hook it up to my 19" monitor, my keyboard and mouse and play the latest games without a fraction of the headaches. The only difference it that It'll cost me a tenth of the price. It seems like an easy choice. I'm not sure why so many people have this undying brand loyalty. I want to play the best games, I don't want to hold onto something because of nostalgia or because of some juvenile inferiority complex. But I'm sure after the xbox is released AMD or Intel will release a processor and all of the PC people will have better looking games, but really who cares. Q3 looks better than UT (IMHO), but I've hardly even played it. Then when microsoft moves on to xbox 2, in 3-5 years (incidently this will be the same time your PCs will have to be upgraded), I'll put down another 200-300 bucks and have the latest and the greatest once more. I don't see much of a downside there.

 

[fastson]

Thanks DragonMaster!

The PC game does not look as good as the PS2 game IMO.
When a PC stores textures in its ram it can run out of ram. When it does the games RUN real slow.. That’s why PS2 game are much faster.

Jaggies only appear on SCREEN SHOTS.. you never see them when you play the actual game. Btw as DragonMaster said "Screen shots doesn’t do the game justice"


-Utfan

 

[Prophetus]

Consoles have a shorter tech span than PC's. Meaning that a PC is upgradeable within months, while consoles are not. But, let's look at the original PS games when it came out and the ones circa 1999. The differences in the graphics was vast. PS2 may be limited by hardware upgrades, but two years from now, I believe the graphics will have improved by leaps and bounds compared to todays shots and demo movies.

One major point about the comparison with PC and consoles is the money. Companies will admit, with no shame, they make more cash from consoles than PC's. This is due to the large amount of piracy, hacks, viruses, crashes, bugs and most importantly...poor systems. The majority of computer users won't pay $2000.00 to play games. They will buy a $300.00 console instead. Gamers, on the other hand, will spend money...but we don't control the market. Hate to break this bad news to you...but we don't. That is why alot of companies will and want to make console games. It's a secure market with mucho cash.

Take for istance these numbers: (this is only an example)

100 million computers running

50 million computers running games

30 million computers have the ability to run the newest and best games

10 million computer gamers use hacked and cracked games

That leaves 40 million (50 - 10 = 40) legitimate users in the market but only a percentage of them can even play the game on their computers

Consoles sell over 100 million

100 million users can play games without worrying about upgrades, patches, or bugs

100 million gamers have the ability to run the newest and best console games

10 million gamers use hacked or cracked console games

That leaves 90 million legitimate users in the market

Game companies know they have a better return with consoles than PC's...and more and more are turning towards the consoles and away from the PC market.

The fact remains...unless PC's become a stable environment for games, the consoles will surpass the PC...in sales. Maybe not in graphics. But one day, computer graphics will have reach a point of no improvement...then what? I believe people will go for what's cheaper and more stable. Yes, we do have the internet and user options...but the day will come when consoles will have that also.

[Edited by Prophetus][PuF][ on 09-29-2000 at 03:56 PM]

 

[Toolvana]

Proph, that's the smartest d@mn thing I've read in this thread so far.
Btw, as much as diehard PC fans hate to admit it, the ability/functionality gap between PC and consoles is shrinking. When q3a comes out for Dreamcast, they will be able to play online with PC players. Of course they'll get slaughtered, but that's besides the point...

 

[Ultron]

I like those bars. At least the HUD is much simpler. The default HUD is way too cumbersome. There may be higher polygons, but the skins may be lower res. I think there are probably going to be less texture sets used, because of memory constraints. However pushing polygons on the DC and PS2 won't be much of a problem.

 

[Serpico_TC|PuF]

Well, if you people live in a house similar to mine...how you gonna get to the TV to plug your PS2 into it

You're going to have to splash some serious cash to buy a separate TV to play on...

Seriously, if the XBox is a gaming PC in a box, then that may be my next 'upgrade'. Cost wise, why spend 1000 pounds on a system that will be out of date in a few months...any crap PC can run Word/Excel etc...so you only spend the cash to play games. Are the returns really worth it?

I for one will have to think hard about it.

 

[[MUTTS]ImagoX]

Prof makes the best point here... it's all in the numbers. There are way more console users than PC gamers. But, WHY is this do you think? The reason is exactly what is stated above- convienience. The average console gamer doesn't understand the concept of a software driver, or how anti-aliasing works, or even how to determine their IP address... they want something that you plug in, and it works.

Before you scoff and sneer at this "simplistic" attitude, take a moment (if you're old enough), and remember the hellish good-ol'-days of MS-DOS gaming. I remember spending literally DAYS tweaking my autoexec.bat and config.sys files, and playing with my interupt values in order to create custom boot-discs, just to play Mechwarrior2. It was one of the happiest days of my life when I saw just how well Plug and Play worked in Win95, when I installed a new Soundblaster card in my PC in less than 15 minutes.

Sure, a console might be obsolete in 3 years. True- but so what?? The cost of an entire console setup is about that of a top-end video card, and you KNOW that as consumer adoption goes up, the price will drop.

I don't know about you guys, but I already have my PS2 pre-ordered, and I plan on getting Xbox as well when they come out- have you SEEN the list of developers that will be working on that thing? I imagine that we will soon be seeing "Xbox to PC" or "PS2 to PC" ports as the more common occurrance than the other way pretty quickly.

 

[Yellow5]

Enough with the pages and pages of PS2 pictures..

 

[[K]FlyingMonkey]

hahah.
Look at the rocket launcher in the very first picture. That looks like a low-detailed 16bit Launcher. Hmm, doesn't look very nice to me, but then again, the game's not all about graphics. UT STILL Kicks ass, Console, PC, Dreamcast, Atari, Genesis, Nintendo - whatever it is.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Bars, consoles, pixels, polygons.... Sh1t, those racing pics are sweet! (checks his wallet for ps2 buying cash)

Yep, I'm not ashamed to admit that I like consoles. I like games! Just about any games. How good does it play? That's all that matters. I do both PC & console (damn, I don't want to think about the $$ I've spent on this useless stuff) and really don't feel like I'm missing anything when I'm on the console games, cause it's a different game. Does it waste immense amounts of time that I could productively be using to do other things? If so, I like it!

Someone said the gap is narrowing between consoles and PC's. How true. I'd like to see an "ultimate" console system that absolutely blows away a PC someday. I'll enjoy the hell out of it! I've got no imagined loyalty to the PC makers. Put up the best hardware and the best games or lose out. Free market Rules baby!

 

[Clayeth]

There's nothing special about those UT graphics, I don't see that they are any better than the PC version's (I guess you are using lower settings than I am).

The reason consoles can push so many more polygons (or at least part of it I think) is that PC's have to be able to do a variety of things. Graphics editing, video, games, audio... the possibilities are endless. Plus it has to run an OS at the same time as the game. This versatility means that it isn't going to be able to do any one thing perfectly. The consoles however, don't have to worry about an OS. They are created for exactly 1 narrow thing, and to do 1 thing at a time, and therefore can do that 1 thing great... but there's non versatility anywhere.

Want to see what the PC would be like if it was made expressly for games? Look at the Xbox. I believe that Intel and nVidia came up with the CPU/GPU and other chips in the system. BTW, I remember reading somewhere that the Xbox should be able to handle something like 100 million polygons. I think it was PC World... I'll check and post again soon.

 

[Clayeth]

Ok, here we go:

Microsoft is working with NVidia to create the high-performance graphics chip that will sit at the heart of the machine. The company said the chip will deliver more than 200 million polygons per second.

Sony's new PlayStation 2 delivers 75 million polygons per second

Sega's Dreamcast is capable of 3 million polygons per second

But don't forget, the resolutions will be much lower. Especially since they'll have to be able to be played on a regular TV screen. If I get anything I'll get an Xbox. I got a Dreamcast when it came out, and I don't reccomend them... it sucks, I never use it... nothing special there.

As for those of you who just now decided to order a PS2 you're too late. I don't remember exactly but I know they're already pre/back ordered for a LOOOONG time after it is released. I'm thinking I read they probably won't be available on store shelves till summer... but I could be wrong there. I'll leave that up to someone else to verify.. I've done enough here

 

[LagMonster]

Hmmm, even though I have a low res television, stuff I see on cable still looks more realistic than UT running at 1600x1200 on my monitor.

 

[Krypton|BuF]

Anybody ever thought of this:

- Download a map

- open readme

- read: i (mapper) don't recommand to run this map on a slower pc, slowdowns...

Yes, a PC is more expensive than a console, and you have to spend money to upgrade it. But while doing this, it gets more powerful.

The engine of UT is strong enough to handle much more polys than mappers normally use. So my FPS drop if i download a map made to run smooth on a PIII800 MHz (i have a 350MHz CPU)...

People say it'll be possible to download maps for PS2 too, but a year after the PS2 release, the high end maps ready for downloading will suck on PS2 (too slow then), while my upgraded PC still kickz ass with em.

hehe. With a fast PC, we can push UT to it's limits.

This is always a prob with consoles. They are used for several years until the next generation comes out, and while game technology gets better, games have to run down-tuned on old consoles. Look at the current PlayStation, graphics really suck today (Come on, does NHL 2000 look better on PC or on PS1? Hehe, love my PC).

Console users want to insert their disc into their console and play, without any patches/probs, and they can. Why not? But, on the downside, they can't tweak their thingys, or go to the limit of the game engine, and have to wait for the next console generation to come out.

When UT 2 comes out (i suppose after PS2 and UT for PS2 have been released), i'll buy a new graphics card (still use my good ol' voodoo3) and play it at it's limits, which will be raised even more by mappers/mod makers as time passes.
Maybe there's an UT2 version for PS2 too, but it'll have to run on the PS2 which is already old then, and it'll look like UT1 for PS2, and kinda crappy compared to my PC version...


[POST EDITED:
sorry, i just re-read this and have to apologize for my english. but it's late at night here and im tired and my typing sux and... well g'night. sorry. you get the point]

 

[DragonMaster]

If Im not mistaken, I might not have a PS2 game but look at it this way, moniters have a higher resolution than tvs, in addition a PC can replicate and show the PS2 games almost exactly on videos like IGN has done.

Just take a look at some of those videos, ZOe, GT2000, and let me know. Trust me, you'll find not a trace.

No problem UTfan, just speaking my opinion.

 

[The Dopefish]

Slap fight!

 

[Kukuman]

I HATE CONSOLES. Plain and simple. I don't care if the games look better, I can't STAND to play on a console for some weird reason. I don't judge a game by it's graphics; it helps, but I don't. I play MUDs for crying out loud, and that's text based. I PLAY MUDS ON IMACS AT SCHOOL! That's how much I care about graphics.

BTW, that HUD is spiffy, except for those health and armor bars. Yuck.

Oh, and one more thing. The PS2 is limited to a resolution of roughly 640x480. All consoles are. This is because of the limitations of the television. You may only be able to see some jaggies onscreen on there, but the PS2 has no FSAA and is limited to a low resolution by PC standards, so when you get in front of the TV, you will notice it.

 

[JuiceEggsMcKenna]

Interesting points

Lots of good issues have been raised here. Looking at the evolution of games consoles from the basic cartridge-based machines of the '80s and early '90s up to multifunction devices like the PS2 and the future XBox (they are going to change the name, right?) it seems that consoles are evolving to be more like PCs (DVD, Internet, keyboards, music software etc) while at the same time, PCs are becoming more like consoles ("legacy free" mobos, set top box cases, consumer packaging etc). Now that Microsoft is in on the action, the line between gaming PC and gaming console is just going to get blurrier and blurrier (think DirectX) until eventually arguments like this will become meaningless.

 

[hal]

Originally posted by LagMonster
Hmmm, even though I have a low res television, stuff I see on cable still looks more realistic than UT running at 1600x1200 on my monitor.

I seriously hope you are joking, because that is comparing broadcast video to rendered polygons. They aren't even remotely similar. How about running a DVD movie on a computer and comparing it to PS2 games...saying the PC must be more powerful than the PS2 because the picture looks better.

I must dispel your notion, UTfan, that RAM is slower than reading directly from the CD. It's is exactly the opposite of that. RAM is much, much, much, much faster than than reading and processing the information pulled off a CD. Have you ever watched a PS load a game slowly...while another console like an N64, which reads directly from a ROM card has no load time?

All that aside, I really don't think that those screen shots of the PS2 version of UT are any better than what I see on my PC. In fact, other than the player models in those shots, the rest of the levels look much less detailed than their PC cousins.

In all fairness, those pics were taken from an ign article on an unfinished product. Epic still hasn't optimized the code.

I like consoles, and have always had them. I like my PC for different reasons. I think I'll keep them both.