FPS games on consoles vs PCs

[Darth Wong]

I also think it noteworthy that Halo already lags and gets jerky when the action gets really heavy; I've experienced this myself. And if you could snap around your viewpoint as quickly on Halo as you do with a keyboard/mouse rather than dragging your viewpoint around at glacial speed, it would lag like crazy.

PS. Newer games on PC can usually have details turned down so they'll still play on an old PC. When XBox2 comes out, try playing those games on an XBox1.

[2000AD]

Since you can get emulators for the PC allowing you to play games from other platforms doesn't that mena that a console will never have more games available to it than a PC?

N.B. I know yolu can get Amiga emulators and PSX ems, but can you get PS2 or X-Box ems ?

[Hotfoot]

Since you can get emulators for the PC allowing you to play games from other platforms doesn't that mena that a console will never have more games available to it than a PC?

Seeing as how the PC gaming library starts with the C64 (roughly) and has a solid history now of twenty years of games on various operating systems, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any one gaming company that has more games than a computer could. In fact, I'd hazard a guess and say that all the consoles ever made couldn't compete with the vast library that is Personal Computers. Even without PCs emulating consoles, the fact that all previous consoles cannot be played on the newer consoles (with the limited exception of PS2 and GBA) neuters nearly twenty years of console games right off the bat. All you've got are PSX games, GB games, GC games, and XBox games (and maybe DC games if you're generous). The total combined titles of those are pathetic when compared to modern computer gaming libraries. Add in emulation, and it is absolutely impossible.

N.B. I know yolu can get Amiga emulators and PSX ems, but can you get PS2 or X-Box ems ?

You can get the following emulators that I know of:
NES, SNES, N64, PSX, Sega Master/Genesis/CD, GB/GBC/GBA.

I honestly don't know if anyone's managed an XBox, PS2, or GC emulator yet, but it is possible. Of course, it's a difficult job and people aren't likely to do it since the console companies are jealously protective of their equipment, despite the fact that they sell it at a loss.

However, people have been able to put Linux on their XBoxes, which seems to indicate to me that a workaround does exist, and that an XBox emulator is available, but that is not my area of expertise.

[Cyborg Stan]

the only type of game that consoles have in great supply which the PC lacks are fighting games, which is hardly a loss as far as I'm concerned, since the vast majority of fighting games are piles of shit where a button-masher can beat someone who knows what they're doing

The PC has one of the best fighting games ever: One must Fall 2097 !!! Even better it is now free to download form Fileplanet or a variety of other places.

This is kinda interesting since they're making One Must Fall : Battlegrounds which is trying to put the strengths of the PC (multiplayer up to 16, modability, etc) into a fighting game. At the very least, it's definite food for thought as to how different the genre could potentially be.

[The Kernel]

Did I say resolution? Who said anything about resolution?

The kicker here is the higher resolution of the PC games. This was an unfortunate side effect of both the slow adoption of HDTV and the lack of speedy memory chips during the Xbox's launch (for those who don't know, faster memory is key to running at higher resolutions). The next-gen consoles will probably be pushing around 100 GB/s of memory bandwidth so making all games 1080i native won't be a problem. Five years may seem like a long time for a single hardware platform but I am constantly amazed by the amount of power developers have pushed from the Xbox given the relatively antiquated architechture. Have you seen Sudeki yet? Best damn graphics I've ever seen.

"There, you said it. Now, on to the next part."

Idiot. I was talking about in regards to a very specific point with Mike on quality settings on the PC. Do you usually like to deliberately take a person's quote out of context like this?

There are several strengths that the PC will never lose to consoles. Consoles are specialized, and are hurt severely by it. It's hard to justify a console purchase for anything but gaming. You can purchase a gaming PC and use it for a host of different tasks which can be completely seperate from gaming.

Which I made abundently clear from the beginning. I DO think that consoles will rule eventually, but then I think that the PC is probably going to be replaced by a set top box eventually too. Now get this through your head: THAT DOESN'T MEAN I THINK IT WILL HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON.

Spec-tac-ular, I don't care. Graphics cards are only one piece of the puzzle, and if DOOM 3's latest leaked Alpha or Beta doesn't run smoothly on your machine, it doesn't fucking matter because it's not the final fucking released code! Of course a fucking leaked Alpha isn't going to be a smooth as the final product, the same is just as true with consoles as PCs. If you got your hands on the original alpha of FF7 and tried to run it on your PS1, it would have looked like shit and been as buggy as hell.

You are either very, very stupid or very, very ignorant. Do I really need to attack this logic?

*shrug*, fine. You think graphics cards are only one piece of the puzzle? Sorry, totally wrong. The graphics card is 90% of the gaming PC. You can build a very decent gaming PC with an antiquated processor. Think you can do the same with an old graphics card?

As for your ridiculous comments about benchmarking, I'm not even going to bother explaining this to you in detail since you have demonstrated such considerable ignorance but the Doom III engine and the HL2 engine are DONE. John Carmack released his renderer and code to the first wave of Doom III licencees months ago. Doom III is in the testing and balance phases now, with little to no work being done on the engine. The performance tests are in and the GeForce FX 5200 and Radeon 9200, can't play this game worth shit. Too bad, so sad.

As for the rest of your post, it is little more than nonsensical drivel. It is obvious you have no conception of either the game development process, nor graphics/computer hardware.

[Keevan_Colton]

Kernel, here's some points for you.

It is possible to play modern games very well, with better graphics and resolution that any console title with GeForce MX, I know because I am using one in my current machine. You seem to think that a high powered graphics system is the be all end all. It isnt, and even if it was, in that regard, PC's bend consoles over the table and fuck them harder than Bubba at the jailhouse.

When you have a PC it can be upgraded, this is not true of consoles....they only get more obsolete.

PC's offer greater versatility, they also allow more developers access which results in a better quality of game. There are games that are "classics" in the console arena, simply because there's nothing better than them, not because they are actually excellent. That's not the case in the PC market, games production is far more compettitive, resulting in a better product (in most cases) for the consumer.

Some of the best games on the PC have been developed by independent programmers, this CANNOT happen with consoles.

But, back to the FPS thing, consoles cannot come anywhere near the level of PC's in that particular arena. The graphics are poorer, the controls are inferior and the possibilites for adapting them non-existant.

[Darth Wong]

Which I made abundently clear from the beginning. I DO think that consoles will rule eventually, but then I think that the PC is probably going to be replaced by a set top box eventually too. Now get this through your head: THAT DOESN'T MEAN I THINK IT WILL HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON.

Consoles will never "rule" until they gain more features and become more like a PC, which might happen as more intuitive interfaces are developed and computer power continues to increase. In which case, it's hard to say that consoles actually "won", rather than being turned into highly standardized gaming computers.

[The Kernel]

Kernel, here's some points for you.

It is possible to play modern games very well, with better graphics and resolution that any console title with GeForce MX, I know because I am using one in my current machine. You seem to think that a high powered graphics system is the be all end all. It isnt, and even if it was, in that regard, PC's bend consoles over the table and fuck them harder than Bubba at the jailhouse.

Absolutely true, the NV10 architecture is competant for most current games that do not make heavy use of pixel/vertex shaders. But for games like Doom III you really need a DX8 hardware card. This doesn't necessarily mean high powered, just featured.

When you have a PC it can be upgraded, this is not true of consoles....they only get more obsolete.

True, but the life of a console is longer due to developers being able to code for specific hardware. You can wring a lot of performance out of an Xbox considering its relatively anemic (by today's standards) hardware.

I am constantly amazed by some of the things that developers were able to pull off with the PSX seeing as how it is so "obsolete".

PC's offer greater versatility, they also allow more developers access which results in a better quality of game. There are games that are "classics" in the console arena, simply because there's nothing better than them, not because they are actually excellent. That's not the case in the PC market, games production is far more compettitive, resulting in a better product (in most cases) for the consumer.

Some of the best games on the PC have been developed by independent programmers, this CANNOT happen with consoles.

Once again, you're absolutely right. BUT, this is becoming harder and harder to do. Want to know why? Because development costs are skyrocketing. It used to be that a guy like Sid Meier or Chris Roberts could sit down with some buddies in their garage and create an awesome game. Now it takes an average of $10 million for even the most modest title. That means that the only TRUE independents are the modders.

But, back to the FPS thing, consoles cannot come anywhere near the level of PC's in that particular arena. The graphics are poorer, the controls are inferior and the possibilites for adapting them non-existant.

Once again, you are right. God I'm getting tired of saying that Seriously though, I was never really trying to argue against it. I just meant that in the real world we have to accept the fact that a lot of developers are starting to shift titles to consoles because of higher potential sales (whether or not the console is the best platform). Did you really think Blizzard would make an exclusive console game?

If a game has an equivalent release on both the PC and Xbox, I'll take PC for almost any title. I love the PC as a gaming platform but I recognize that it may be too complicated and expensive for the masses.

[The Kernel]

Which I made abundently clear from the beginning. I DO think that consoles will rule eventually, but then I think that the PC is probably going to be replaced by a set top box eventually too. Now get this through your head: THAT DOESN'T MEAN I THINK IT WILL HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON.

Consoles will never "rule" until they gain more features and become more like a PC, which might happen as more intuitive interfaces are developed and computer power continues to increase. In which case, it's hard to say that consoles actually "won", rather than being turned into highly standardized gaming computers.

Mr. Wong, I think we are in complete argreement.

[Hotfoot]

Idiot. I was talking about in regards to a very specific point with Mike on quality settings on the PC. Do you usually like to deliberately take a person's quote out of context like this?

You then went on to say that PCs would lose most of their advantages to consoles, and that one needs a HDTV in order to take full advantage of a console's graphics. Meanwhile, graphical effects like lighting and shadows are nice for atmosphere and all that, but without proper resolution, you're looking at only so much blurry trash. Make a video of a gloriously rendered game like, say, Half-Life 2, and shrink it down to 320x240 pixels. Looks like shit. Now try 640x480. Still looks like shit, but it's better. Now try 1280x960, which is just about standard for most games these days (give or take a scale). On computers, the bare minimum is usually 800x600. There's only so much high-tech trickery you can do to make the graphics look better when you're limited by resolution. I'm sorry, but Morrowind PC, GTA: VC PC, and Deus Ex PC ALL look better than their console counterparts, and all benefit greatly from the enhanced resolution. Even if you do only run the game at 800x600 (which is rare), you're still getting better graphical quality than on a console.

Which I made abundently clear from the beginning. I DO think that consoles will rule eventually, but then I think that the PC is probably going to be replaced by a set top box eventually too. Now get this through your head: THAT DOESN'T MEAN I THINK IT WILL HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON.

I don't care, your logic still does not follow. Consoles have loads and loads of games that are restricted to a rather slim selection of game types. If you want to play anything else, you're SOL. If you want to play an old game, but your old system broke, you're SOL again. If you want to upgrade, you're SOL until the company releases the next generation, which could take years, and there's no promise it will be as good a run as the last generation. Plus, for full compatability and the full selection of console games, you have to buy ALL the consoles currently on the market, which, if you get them all at initial cost, is going to cost you as much as a decent (and upgradeable) gaming rig.

You are either very, very stupid or very, very ignorant. Do I really need to attack this logic?

No, you need to defend yours, dipshit.

*shrug*, fine. You think graphics cards are only one piece of the puzzle? Sorry, totally wrong. The graphics card is 90% of the gaming PC. You can build a very decent gaming PC with an antiquated processor. Think you can do the same with an old graphics card?

Actually, yes. Allow me to paint you a fucking picture:

Pick up Unreal Tournament 2003. It has a very nice graphics engine and is not a big resource hog. It's nice and scalable, as PC games often are. Now, you can go online and play with a dozen other people and suffer virtually no lag. The graphics run smoothly even on older cards (though obviously scaled down somewhat), and the rest of the game goes from there.

Now, play by yourself and throw in twelve bots and watch as your system grinds to a halt trying to process the twelve individual AI routines. That data doesn't go through your fucking graphics card, so it doesn't matter if you've got a Voodoo 2 or an ATI Orgasmo 9000, the bottleneck isn't in the graphics.

As games get more complex, as the AI gets more challenging, as the details the computer has to keep track of increases, the more powerful a base system you need. So no, 90% of gaming is not in the fucking graphics you moron. Graphics are important, but since PCs can scale back graphical options as required by the user's individual system, you don't need a fucking monsterous graphics card to play most games. You are taking a handful of examples of system-hogging PC games where if you don't have a badass graphics card you have to either turn a lot of options off or not be able to play. So far, you've been focusing on Doom 3. One fucking game, ONE, and it's not even out yet! That's not the vast majority of PC games you ignorant fuck, it's not even fucking CLOSE.

As for your ridiculous comments about benchmarking, I'm not even going to bother explaining this to you in detail since you have demonstrated such considerable ignorance but the Doom III engine and the HL2 engine are DONE. John Carmack released his renderer and code to the first wave of Doom III licencees months ago.

Okay, so what? Do you have a copy of the final engine code, fully optimized and bug-free or not?

Doom III is in the testing and balance phases now, with little to no work being done on the engine. The performance tests are in and the GeForce FX 5200 and Radeon 9200, can't play this game worth shit. Too bad, so sad.

Okay, so what? What do you prove by declaring that a game NOBODY HAS YET can't run for shit? If nobody has it, and nobody can run it, it's hardly a fucking landmark game, now is it? For all I know, the algorithm for shading in DOOM3 is disgustingly inefficient, and that slows down the whole game. Or maybe some minor tweaking can be done on the graphics cards, new drivers or such, that make the game run much faster.

In any event, it's a fucking trivial point. DOOM3 is not most games. DOOM3 is one game. One game I've not followed that much, and frankly, I only knew about the leaked alpha a while back that had gotten out. So forgive me if I don't know everything about a fucking game that I really don't give a shit about because I'm more interested in Thief 3, Deus Ex 2, Starfury, and host of other games I'd rather play than some piece of shit with pretty graphics and no real lasting power.

As for the rest of your post, it is little more than nonsensical drivel. It is obvious you have no conception of either the game development process, nor graphics/computer hardware.

Oh really? Then tell me, which parts of my post aren't true, exactly? You've been full of bullshit since your first post, pal, so you're hardly in a position to be accusing me of the same without something serious to back you up, and so far, you've got nothing.

[Hotfoot]

Once again, you're absolutely right. BUT, this is becoming harder and harder to do. Want to know why? Because development costs are skyrocketing. It used to be that a guy like Sid Meier or Chris Roberts could sit down with some buddies in their garage and create an awesome game. Now it takes an average of $10 million for even the most modest title. That means that the only TRUE independents are the modders.

A-hem. This is not true. I would like to direct you towards http://www.shrapnelgames.com to show you several new, modest games, all with production costs well below $10m. One of the titles, Space Empires Gold, is arguably better than the more recent, more high-publicity, higher-budget Masters of Orion 3.

If a game has an equivalent release on both the PC and Xbox, I'll take PC for almost any title. I love the PC as a gaming platform but I recognize that it may be too complicated and expensive for the masses.

I will agree with you fully on the part about PCs being too complicated for the masses. However, the fact remains that a PC is often required to have for some jobs and is becoming vital in education. Again, it comes back to justifying the cost of the PC. When you can use a Playstation to do research for your term paper, then use the same machine to compose and revise your paper, I'll grant you the second part, but that does not look like it's going to happen, period. Add to that the fact that as computer use becomes more widespread, more people will know how to deal with computers, having grown up with them, which will eventually erode much (though obviously not all) of the current complexity issues most people have. I know of several 20-somethings who were (and still are) virtually luddites. I suspect that in another two decades that number will shrink dramatically.

[Shogoki]

Note he said full compatiability and justify the thought that the PS2 and X-Box provide a better Selection.

Perhaps larger in some respects, but better is highly subjective.

Larger? just how many games can run on a cheap ass 2 year old pc? I think it's something like, what, every game made since 1985, plus all but the newest consoles?

[Hotfoot]

Note he said full compatiability and justify the thought that the PS2 and X-Box provide a better Selection.

Perhaps larger in some respects, but better is highly subjective.

Larger? just how many games can run on a cheap ass 2 year old pc? I think it's something like, what, every game made since 1985, plus all but the newest consoles?

On a two year old PC? Well, let's see...my current computer is well into its third year, with its only modifications being a new graphics card and a new hard drive. I can install any game I own onto my system and it will run. In fact, I even have my old Voodoo 2 installed for improved legacy support. Games I used to play on my old Commodore 64 still run quite nicely, as do games from my Apple IIGS, and my 386, and my Pentium 133, and my 333 Celeron....

Now let's see the Playstation 2 run Metal Gear 1 using the original cart.

[Shogoki]

Increase memory access speed == improved overall speed.

Not by as much as people would think. For example, you're lucky to get a 5-10% increase in performance if you double or even quadruple memory bandwidth. This has been observed before, with Rambus and DDR vs SDR RAM. And if your memory bandwidth exceeds the rate at which the CPU can ask for data, then further boosts will result in a 0% performance increase.

Precisely, excess bandwitdh is useless.

[Chardok]

Just a quick interjection:
Mike, I have Halo, and I never experienced lag aside from the blip-load in empty hallways between areas, no matter how many covenant/flood are on the screen at one time. I think the Xbox does a great job with Halo, and I stick by my orange/tangerine comparison

[Darth Wong]

Just a quick interjection:
Mike, I have Halo, and I never experienced lag aside from the blip-load in empty hallways between areas, no matter how many covenant/flood are on the screen at one time. I think the Xbox does a great job with Halo, and I stick by my orange/tangerine comparison

You need a bunch of explosions going off. Try it.

[phongn]

No kidding, it only applies if you have a memory staved processor.

::cough:: PPC G4...

If there ever was an example of a processor that desperately needed more bandwidth, that's it. The P4 has benefitted from increased memory bandwidth, though, if not by spectacular results.

But there is a very very big reason CPU/GPUs have onboard caches. These have much faster memory, and this provides some fairly dramatically improvements on access speed.

Well, to a certain extent. The huge L3 cache on the P4EE/Xeon MP won't be useful for most consumers and gamers; OTOH the extra L2 on the Barton helped, as did it on the G4e (7447/7457)/

[phongn]

*shrug*, fine. You think graphics cards are only one piece of the puzzle? Sorry, totally wrong. The graphics card is 90% of the gaming PC. You can build a very decent gaming PC with an antiquated processor. Think you can do the same with an old graphics card?

No, you can't do that with an old GPU, but an old CPU will hurt, too. You'll run into CPU-limitations as it struggles to send enough setup over the AGP bus.

As for your ridiculous comments about benchmarking, I'm not even going to bother explaining this to you in detail since you have demonstrated such considerable ignorance but the Doom III engine and the HL2 engine are DONE. John Carmack released his renderer and code to the first wave of Doom III licencees months ago. Doom III is in the testing and balance phases now, with little to no work being done on the engine. The performance tests are in and the GeForce FX 5200 and Radeon 9200, can't play this game worth shit. Too bad, so sad.

The D3 engine is targetted at the GeForce GTS or R7000 level for minimum specifications, plus 256MB RAM and a 1GHz processor. The R2x0 and NV3x series cards are quite in excess of that minimum. The D3 OpenGL renderer is little more advanced that what's seen in DirectX 7, but it uses those features in quite sophisticated ways.

The HL2 engine is targetted at the TNT2 level with a 733MHz CPU and 128MB of RAM. The HL2 DirectX renderer is very advanced but is designed to scale down as far as DirectX 6 in terms of feature-set.

Obviously, neither game will look extraordinary nor will framerates be stellar. That's not the point: the game should run at an acceptable speed even with such old hardware.

[phongn]

Once again, you're absolutely right. BUT, this is becoming harder and harder to do. Want to know why? Because development costs are skyrocketing. It used to be that a guy like Sid Meier or Chris Roberts could sit down with some buddies in their garage and create an awesome game. Now it takes an average of $10 million for even the most modest title. That means that the only TRUE independents are the modders.

A-hem. This is not true. I would like to direct you towards http://www.shrapnelgames.com to show you several new, modest games, all with production costs well below $10m. One of the titles, Space Empires Gold, is arguably better than the more recent, more high-publicity, higher-budget Masters of Orion 3.

Don't forget Galactic Civlizations either - neither SE4 Gold or GalCiv were produced by big-budget studios.

Sure, a lot of games are around the $10 million mark now, but not all are and there are still gems to be found. And for that matter, Id is still independant and retains complete rights to D3; only distribution is handled by their partner.

When you can use a Playstation to do research for your term paper, then use the same machine to compose and revise your paper, I'll grant you the second part, but that does not look like it's going to happen, period.

Well, with the PS2 Linux kit you could

[Pu-239]

Holy shit, so HL2 will run on my GFX card?

...ah crap, my CPU is too weak.

[Chardok]

A bit off-topic, but NOT, I repeat, NOT an attempt at a hijack! (I'm not even sure what an actual thread hijack looks like, to be perfectly honest.


This is for Mr. Wong as well.
As console titles go, how did you feel really about Halo? (I'm a fanboy, so I happen to think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread...to me, it looks great, plays well, and, as you mentioned, it has a fairly engrossing backstory.)
I happen to also thouroughly enjoy the Halo co op mode. There's nothing quite as fun as seeing my brother pick up a spanker (Which I was after) and introducing the butt of my rifle to the back of his head (Which kills MC in one shot) "Hell no, Bitch! That's my spanker!" Followed by an all-out war of rifle-butting and pistol-whipping.

[Hotfoot]

Well, with the PS2 Linux kit you could

Bah, I say, bah. Besides, you'd need to get USB storage devices to save it and a USB printer to print it, plus a USB KB+Mouse to write it.

Though I can just see it now...writing your term paper with the dual shock controller...or better yet, a DDR pad!

And yes, GalCiv was small-time as well, and there are many other such small-time endevours.

[Ghost Rider]

Note he said full compatiability and justify the thought that the PS2 and X-Box provide a better Selection.

Perhaps larger in some respects, but better is highly subjective.

Larger? just how many games can run on a cheap ass 2 year old pc? I think it's something like, what, every game made since 1985, plus all but the newest consoles?

Also note...I did change that thought in later statements and never once thought that honestly even the combined thought of the two he mentioned with the shadow of the PSX actually equaled the PC library. More or less I was thinking persay PC in perhaps a couple years worth...probably should've thought longer for it(sue me...2 hours of sleep isn't good).

[phongn]

Well, with the PS2 Linux kit you could

Bah, I say, bah. Besides, you'd need to get USB storage devices to save it and a USB printer to print it, plus a USB KB+Mouse to write it.

Though I can just see it now...writing your term paper with the dual shock controller...or better yet, a DDR pad!

The Linux kit comes with a 40GB HD [IIRC], keyboard and mouse. And bah, my house has a networked laser printer, none of this foolish USB printing stuff here!

[Darth Wong]

As console titles go, how did you feel really about Halo? (I'm a fanboy, so I happen to think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread...to me, it looks great, plays well, and, as you mentioned, it has a fairly engrossing backstory.)

It's OK. The story makes the game, but the graphics and gameplay are nothing special (although I suppose they're probably very good for a console FPS game; we've established quite clearly that consoles suck for FPS games).

I happen to also thouroughly enjoy the Halo co op mode. There's nothing quite as fun as seeing my brother pick up a spanker (Which I was after) and introducing the butt of my rifle to the back of his head (Which kills MC in one shot) "Hell no, Bitch! That's my spanker!" Followed by an all-out war of rifle-butting and pistol-whipping.

Halo's co-op mode is a good addition because my son likes to play the game, and he does a lot better with me backing him up than he does on his own. But to be honest, that's the only reason I started playing the game: to help my son. I find PC sim, RTS, puzzle, and shooter games to be more addictive now that I've played the game through and learned the story.