Gallant Pig

Let's stop this off-topic of this thread right now. This thread has nothing to do with the PC. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PC!!!! Ok?

ScandalUMD

I disagree. Someone asks what console is the best for FPS, and the answer is "none of the above." If FPS is your main motivation, your best bet is to put that $200 towards more RAM or a video card upgrade.

namja

I see no problem with ScandalUMD's posts. He's providing a solid alternative to the game consoles. If indeed FPS is the most important factor to the thread starter, then the PC cannot be overlooked. $200 to upgrade a PC may be a better investment than buying a new console.

Of course, let's not turn this into a Game Console v. PC thread.

Gallant Pig

I'm probably getting worked up over nothing, never mind. If you have the dough, splurge and get a killer computer system. Otherwise if you are looking for a good bargain for a good FPS console, get the Xbox.

Sloth911

thanks for the PC comments, but i must agree my focus in on buying a console system.

i am well aware that the PC has many advatages over console systems, horsepower and FPS wise.... obviously games like Quake 3 and SOF for the PC far surpass any console game graphic and FPS wise, BUT i want to buy a console.

i want to take advatnage of my 27inch tv and my nice lazy boy (not tuirn my PC, which i already stare at enough, into a gaming machine)... so i am specifically looking at conoles,
however thanks for all the input about PC's.

plus, you cant rent games for the PC, but if you could, i might be there! cd-r' and all...

Flay

Based on post history, Scandal often promotes any alternative to the Xbox or the current and upcoming Xbox library. Just be wary of subtly-induced agendas.

As for me, I own all 3 systems plus a speed-demon PC. Give me Doom 3 on a 36" flat screen with dolby digital sound while laid back in a plush leather couch using Halo-style controls over a high-res 19" monitor with k/m and a stiff leather office chair anyday.

As far as driving games are concerned, I'd say XBox if you want to race and PS2 if you want to play the GTA series, 50% driving/ 50% 3rd person shooter, which is fabulous if you haven't already heard.

On the PS2 side of things, you have:

Gran Turismo 3
Gran Turismo 4: (Early 2004, with online play)
Grand Theft Auto 3
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
ATV Offroad Fury 1 & 2: (2 will be online)

On the Xbox side of things, you have:

Sega GT 2002: (Not as good as GT3, but it will be online sooner)
Rallisport Challenge 1 and 2: (2 will be online)
Project Gotham Racing
Project Gotham Racing 2: (Early 2004, online)
Quantum Redshift: (blows away any futuristic racer I've seen)
Midtown Madness 3: (Fully online)

As for the multiconsole offerings, the XBox is getting better support with the acception of a couple games. The XBox version will usually have higher quality graphics, better sound quality, and often extra features.

NFS: Hot Pursuit 2: (Better visuals and sound on the PS2)
Moto GP: (Better visuals and sound on the XBox, includes online play with the XBox)
Pro Race Driver: (Only online with the xbox plus better visuals and sound)
Lamborghini: (Both online, but better visuals and sound on the XBox)
Mafia: (Just look at Max Payne XBox/PS2 comparisons if you want to see how PC ports turn out)
Auto Modellista: (Probably about the same due to Cel Shading, Both online)
Colin McRae Rally 3: (will look and sound better on the XBox)
MX Superfly: (online downloadable content with the XBox)
Driver 3: (who knows based on craptacular Driver 2)

There are alot more driving games on both systems which I left out, but most of them are pretty mediocre.

tha_dvd_man

Carmack said Geforce3, and that it will run on a Geforce1. Any game that runs on a GF1 will not be maximizing a GF4/5/6/whatever.

You're hurting your case and credibility here. The Xbox's GPU is at least equivalent to an enhanced Geforce3, and I've read quotes from Nvidia that it's even on par with a Geforce4. But a Geforce2.5? Please.

True, but developers can never take full advantage of the best hardware out there; they always have to deal with the lowest common denominator, and that combined with the fact that Xbox developers get to work with a fixed system and can keep optimizing the hell out of what they get from it, and the best looking Xbox games will continue to compete with some of the best looking PC games for quite some time. Games like Halo 2, Fable, BC and most likely whatever Rare puts out (besides Kameo which was originally designed for the GC) are proof of this. And those games won't even be utilizing the Xbox's full potential. Will those games run at 1600x1200? No. But there's a hell of a lot more to a game's visuals than resolution.

Of course, I'm in no denial that at one point PC games will simply eclipse the three consoles, as that's a given. What else would you expect with constantly evolving hardware that costs a lot more than a console. But the day PC hardware superior to that of an Xbox is actually taken advantage of to the point where the games start looking significantly better than the best looking Xbox games is a ways off.

I guess that would be Carmack showing his ignorance on the subject, eh? Because he's the one that said the Xbox version will in fact match the visuals of the PC version. And again, get out of this dream land where the game will actually be taking advantage of the features in GF5/6 chipsets. It's not_gonna_happen. Yes, on a PC like that you'll get higher resolutions, probably higher framerates (45-60 as opposed to 30, although the game is slow paced), and somewhat higher resolution shadows due to more memory, but that's about it. Again, I'll believe John Carmack before I'll believe you.

Mid to low detail settings? That wouldn't exactly be the "full graphical fidelity of the PC version", now would it. You want to go have an argument with John Carmack over this, go be my guest.

Controlling wasn't that bad in Halo at all (and will probably be improved upon in Halo 2), and resolution isn't a factor in a FPS game any more than it is in any other. But you have somewhat of a point about speed when it comes to games like QuakeIII, but if we're talking DoomIII here, it's supposed to be by far Carmack's slowest paced games ever.


.......I'm done.

Tamrok

Wrong. The graphics chip on the Xbox is somewhere between the Geforce 3 and the Geforce 4. It is basically a Geforce 3 Ti500 chip (the fastest Geforce 3 chip) with an extra vertex and pixel shader.

Tamrok

Exactly! Carmack has publicly stated that Doom 3 is designed to run and be played (even on the PC) at 30 fps. It is not designed nor intended to be a high speed blast-fest like Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament. The only graphical difference between the Xbox and PC versions will be the higher resolutions available on the PC. Of course, don't take the game creators word for it. I'm sure Scandal knows best...

Aghama

I hope they don't allow the Xbox Doomers to play with the PC guys, it wouldn't be pretty.

tha_dvd_man

I doubt it. Besides, the heart of DoomIII will be its single-player mode, and that's what I'll be getting it for.

Gallant Pig

Hey I should be pretty good with the controller by then, it's the damn resolution that will bury us.

BTW Flay, great post as usual.

Roto

If you get an Xbox now it comes with Sega GT and Jet Set Radio Future until the end of the year. I paid $50 each for both of those games myself.

Sega GT is a pretty nice game, just lacking in tracks
You can also get Rallisport Challenge and Project Gotham Racing for $30 each now, maybe $20 if you look around. Moto GP will run on Xbox Live. Go check out reviews on any of those racing games, they are all excellent.

For FPS fans, the release of Halo 2 and Doom 3 should be enough to own an Xbox.

gcribbs

Really I think you would be happy with an XBox.

I do think you would find games in the PS2 lineup you would like also . however an Xbox might have more games based on the specific interests you have.

Of course a computer would be great however I do know that many can't upgrade to the latest and greatest all the time. I get more features on my computer which is why i buy so many games for it.

However I run a system far faster than most people so I rarely run into system spec issues.

mr.snowmizer

Subtle? I guess so, in the sense of 'as subtle as a sledgehammer'.

This has got to be the easiest recommendation ever. The author of this thread, in search of FPS and racers (having discounted GT3), clearly should pick up an Xbox.

*****

As for NFS:Hot Pursuit, the incredibly talented Black Box developed the PS2 version. The incredibly less-talented EA Canada did the other two.

So it's not just hockey that Black Box does better than EA Canada.

Aghama

EA Seattle developed the Xbox/GC/PC versions. EA Canada produced the Black Box developed PS2 version.

ScandalUMD

Carmack can say a lot of stuff, and that doesn't make it so. Recommending a GeForce 3 makes it the most technically demanding game currently facing release. It may run on a Geforce 1, but how will it run?

My guess is that it would run like a slideshow at 640X480 resolution with all the settings turned down.

And, further, as games progress in development, the system specs tend to rise as developers add more stuff.



I don't know how precisely how it benchmarks next to Geforce 3. I'm pretty certain it doesn't outperform the GeForce 3 Ti500, and the CPU remains a limitation.


Fable and BC are a long way from release. I've said several times that if Molyneux's games come out on the Xbox, and they come close to living up to the promises he's made, I will buy an Xbox. But those are a couple of big ifs. Your hypothetical games aren't much of an argument, until they come out. We'll see what PC games look like when Rare and Molyneux get stuff on Xbox.

Further, id's games tend not to cater to a lowest common denominator, because a lot of their money comes off licensing the engine, so it tends to push the technology when they release one. There's a great deal of scalability built into the game, but Doom 3 on a low end machine will look very different from Doom 3 on a high end system.


I think it's sooner than you think. With cheaper PCs and scaleable game engines, a fast PC will run a much better looking game than you can get on consoles by Christmas 2003.



Carmack hasn't started working with the Xbox. He said that, but he has a reputation for boasting. He's making this claim on his assumption that he can accomplish anything. He also thinks he can shoot himself into space. He's a brilliant and able guy, don't get me wrong, though. I guess we'll know when we see the game running on Xbox.

But even if it's pretty, how will it play? Framerates and resolutions aren't just graphics you know. In fact, many PC gamers reduce texture and model detail and special effects for higher resolution and faster framerates, because that fluidity is critical for presicion.


Halo's weapon set was tailored for consoles. When you buy any PC shooter on a console, you're getting a set of weapons that was designed to be aimed with a mouse, and you have to aim it with a control stick. Fire up Quake 3 for the Dreamcast and see how useful the railgun is. Doom 3 may have an atmospheric single play mode, but the multiplay will still be Doom. Maybe not quite as fast and frantic, but certainly not plodding. Remember, id has to peddle this engine.

Tamrok

But I guess you saying it does make it so? You've certainly got loads of credibility where anything related to the Xbox is concerned. Good luck convincing anyone that you are better qualified to speak about Doom 3 than Carmack, himself...

Groucho

I don't care what Carmack says. I still insist that Doom 3 will be a 2d platformer built on the "Commander Keen" engine.

mr.snowmizer

I know EA Canada and Black Box are two different developers within EA. I don't know who takes claim as the producer on all the console versions, but the end results show it's not important, if indeed all three have the same.

I'm assuming EGM is right listing Black Box as the PS2 developer and EA Canada as the GC/Xbox developer.

I know there were two different developers involved, but I don't remember EA Seattle mentioned in context with NFS:HP.

Aghama

I saw that in EGM as well. EA's press releases for the game say differently.

mr.snowmizer

Hmmmm...

Well, whoever did it is easily eclipsed by Black Box. That was a very smart developer pick-up by EA. Their last two released games are now NHL Hitz 2003 and NFS:HP... two top-notch efforts.

keyed

from Slashdot post on Carmack on Doom III

ScandalUMD

What I'm saying is this.

A) Regardless of what Carmack says, I see no reason to believe Doom 3 will look as good on Xbox as on PC until I see it.

B) This is a shooter designed primarily for PC, which means the weapon design and balance is geared toward the precision of a mouse and keyboard. Playing previous id games on consoles was like playing the piano with mittens on.

C) Even if it looks pretty, it will run at 640 X 480, and probably at 30 frames per second. This means players will have much less precision, even if the game includes mouse and keyboard support.

Does any of this seem unreasonable?

If shooters are your defining characteristic, and you want to play them on a console, Xbox has the most compelling first-person lineup right now.

If online is important to you, I'd recommend hanging back and seeing what happens with the PS2 online adapter and Xbox Live. My prediction is that if Xbox Live is sluggish out of the gate, Microsoft will do something to sweeten the deal, and if it's huge out of the gate, Sony will come up with some kind of offer.

I still say that, as a single player game, Gran Turismo 3 is the finest simulation racer around, and Grand Theft Auto 3 is one of the best games I've ever played. I'm extremely excited about Vice City. The PS2 is a safe bet, no matter what, thanks to its huge user base. It will get quality games through 2005.

If you want to gather a bunch of people around with some beers or something, some people would argue for the Xbox, but I'd make the case for the Gamecube. Nintendo's first party multiplayer stuff had an incredibly long lifespan on the N64, particularly Mario Kart, Goldeneye, and Smash Bros.

Rare's with Microsoft now, so if you like Perfect Dark, that's one to consider, but Nintendo almost certainly has a Mario Kart game in the chute, and Smash Bros on Gamecube is one of the best multiplayer console games I've ever played.

I think you should play all the systems, and figure it out. I know people who hate Xbox controllers and people who hate gamecube controllers, and even some poor deluded souls who hate the dual shock. Figure out which one you like the feel of best.

Sloth911

What is the potential of x-box failing as a gaming company? do they have good sales numbers? are they competitive? from this post it seems like the x-box is the next best thing since sliced bread...

but will it have the same longevity as the PSX and have the same potenital as the PS2 will likely have?