Hermits --- Why do you compare PC graphics to Xbox 360 graphics?

[QUOTE="F-Minus"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]I didnt even clip the link I guess thats a Quake 4 image? The game ported using Direct X and it requries Open Gl so it ran horrible.? I would like see a pc run Gears of War from 2004. Hell if pc is crushing console why cant a pc from 2006 run a game that looks even remotely close to as good as Gears of War?

And before you say "but but teh graphics dont look that good"

Best graphics award winner technical in the "OVERALL CATEGORIES" goes to what do you know a 360 game. The pc has been owned miserably this year sorry end thread.Billyhyw

Heh, if Gears of War would be released on the PC at the same time as for consoles it would look just the same (straight port) or even better if they decided to change it a bit for the PC. The fact is that Gears of War is the first game along with R6:Vegas using the UE3.0 engine. And as you see with Vegas there is no real difference aside from PC version having support for greater resolutions and running above 30FPS and looking slightly better. So would be Gears of War. And what has the year 2004 to do with Gears of War or the PC.

Just becasue there isn't any such games at the moment, doesn't mean the PC can't do it. I'll remember you when Crysis hits the shelves where your Xbox360 games are that look so nice. Besides, do you think when Crysis comes, every PC out there will be obsolete. 2 year old rigs will be able to run it, probably not at the highest settings but still.

And a question: I bet you don't know the difference between DirectX and OpenGL so why even bring it in here. Don't start something you don't have a clue about or you might get burned :), just an advice.

You mean Gears would look better just like TRL and SC.DA did on pc. Um no sorry If they came out at the same time Gears would look better on the 360 as they spent 3 years buidling it ground up for the 360 sorry thats a fact.

And perhaps you need to read the post a little better. He said here is a pc game from 2004 owning your console. And he posted HL2. Now the fact that anyone argues HL2 looks better then EVERYTHING on the 360 is laughable in my opionion and its simply plain pathetic.

Now an answer to you. Yes I do know the differnce between DX and Open Gl. Dx is a Microsoft IP with a set of instructions that must be followed. Open Gl has a much wider and open set of instructions but if you port in between the two you would have to make things work to fit the other and unless your very good and spend lots of time and money( which obviously the Quake4 team didnt) then its going to turn out horribly.

Now Since i just owned you is there any other questions you would like me to answer? Ill bring things here because I know knowledge about the topic I unlike others are not cluless fanboys that make random things up about games and systems I have never played.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="F-Minus"]Well hold it there.

Which console to PC ports should look better on the console. It's pretty few of them if any.
Billyhyw

Pretty much every console to pc port looks better on console are you kidding me?

Those are console ports?  LOL um R6 Vegas looks identical to the pc version other hten it only supports 720p.

I was talking about SC.Da, Hitman Blood Money, NFS,MW, and TR.L just to name a few thanks.

LOL you cant see for yourself because you are a blind fanboy. If every professional gaming sight and mag disagrees with you then you are biast.  And are you telling me now that a 6800ULTRA can run games as good as the 360 and PS3.  The 6800 ULTRA cant even run Oblvion as good as the 360 much less Gears.

Regardless Midevil 2 isnt very impressive and you saying it looks better then Gears if a joke I refuse to respond to any of your lame post .

[QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]

Why do I always see the same type of replies from hermits about the cost of PCs?

Hermits say --- "I can build a ridiculously high-end mega-beast-monster of a PC that trumps anything the 360 will ever do in its lifespan and run every type of the latest greatest PC game for $800" :roll:

Yeah, I'm sure every single hermit who visits this forum knows how to build a PC because they sure act like they do... :roll:

Hermits never want to admit that getting the very best outta PC gaming is expensive...whether it is having to intall the latest $600 graphics card every 2 years and whatnot. Just admit it is expensive. I've never seen ONE hermit ever admit this...surprise me....

Danm_999

Well, then I guess I'm completely misinformed because I thought for sure having to install the latest greatest graphics card every couple of years would get expensive...That would add up more over time than having to buy a great HDTV one time...How is my rationale wrong in this?

You mean Gears would look better just like TRL and SC.DA did on pc. Um no sorry If they came out at the same time Gears would look better on the 360 as they spent 3 years buidling it ground up for the 360 sorry thats a fact.

And perhaps you need to read the post a little better. He said here is a pc game from 2004 owning your console. And he posted HL2. Now the fact that anyone argues HL2 looks better then EVERYTHING on the 360 is laughable in my opionion and its simply plain pathetic.

Now an answer to you. Yes I do know the differnce between DX and Open Gl. Dx is a Microsoft IP with a set of instructions that must be followed. Open Gl has a much wider and open set of instructions but if you port in between the two you would have to make things work to fit the other and unless your very good and spend lots of time and money( which obviously the Quake4 team didnt) then its going to turn out horribly.

Now Since i just owned you is there any other questions you would like me to answer? Ill bring things here because I know knowledge about the topic I unlike others are not cluless fanboys that make random things up about games and systems I have never played.Billyhyw

[QUOTE="Kev_Unreal"]hermits don't make graphics thread.:P only lemmings and cows do.Kayrod29

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="F-Minus"]Well hold it there.

Which console to PC ports should look better on the console. It's pretty few of them if any.
muscleserge

Pretty much every console to pc port looks better on console are you kidding me?

Those are console ports? LOL um R6 Vegas looks identical to the pc version other hten it only supports 720p.

I was talking about SC.Da, Hitman Blood Money, NFS,MW, and TR.L just to name a few thanks.

I didnt even clip the link I guess thats a Quake 4 image? The game ported using Direct X and it requries Open Gl so it ran horrible.? I would like see a pc run Gears of War from 2004. Hell if pc is crushing console why cant a pc from 2006 run a game that looks even remotely close to as good as Gears of War?

And before you say "but but teh graphics dont look that good"

Best graphics award winner technical in the "OVERALL CATEGORIES" goes to what do you know a 360 game. The pc has been owned miserably this year sorry end thread.

Of course there are some pcs that can run GeoW?  According to Mark Rein though its not coming to pc because the average gaming rig wont run it well.  So its obvious an issue. Regardless would of , could of and should of dont matter.  You obviously think the 360 isnt capable of making Quake 4 run better?  Facts are facts and right now GeoW is the best looking game on the market its done on a 400 dollar console.

Its only aguably among fanboys right now it is the best.  And know you would need alot more then a 7900GS to run GeoW as good as the 360.  Mainly because the game takes great advantage of the system.  Im sure it will come to the pc so we will find out in due time but im guessing maybe an x1950?  maybe even higher just because of how well it was optimized for the 360.  And I have played the crap out of the fully modded version of Oblivion( even made the moon look like the Death Star) and it still doesnt look better then GeoW .  It is a gorgeus lookin game though for both the pc and 360 . But the CGI quality graphics of Gears are a new standard.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="F-Minus"]Well hold it there.

Which console to PC ports should look better on the console. It's pretty few of them if any.
Danm_999

Pretty much every console to pc port looks better on console are you kidding me?

Those are console ports? LOL um R6 Vegas looks identical to the pc version other hten it only supports 720p.

I was talking about SC.Da, Hitman Blood Money, NFS,MW, and TR.L just to name a few thanks.

I didnt even clip the link I guess thats a Quake 4 image? The game ported using Direct X and it requries Open Gl so it ran horrible.? I would like see a pc run Gears of War from 2004. Hell if pc is crushing console why cant a pc from 2006 run a game that looks even remotely close to as good as Gears of War?

And before you say "but but teh graphics dont look that good"

Best graphics award winner technical in the "OVERALL CATEGORIES" goes to what do you know a 360 game. The pc has been owned miserably this year sorry end thread.

Of course there are some pcs that can run GeoW? According to Mark Rein though its not coming to pc because the average gaming rig wont run it well. So its obvious an issue. Regardless would of , could of and should of dont matter. You obviously think the 360 isnt capable of making Quake 4 run better? Facts are facts and right now GeoW is the best looking game on the market its done on a 400 dollar console.

Errr Microsoft owns the rights to Gears not Epic in other words it gets ported when Microsoft says it does.  Epic was simply stating not enough pcs can run it well its really not worth doing it right now especially sinceits already sold over 5 mill on hte 360 and is doing just fine on 1 platform.

My PC costed me around $1000 dollars to build 2 years ago.  Since then I've had to upgrade my video card once and upgrade my ram.  Oblivion still looked better than the 360 version.

Lemmings are just as guilty as Hermits, especially when Gears of War was released.

Terami

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="F-Minus"]Well hold it there.

Which console to PC ports should look better on the console. It's pretty few of them if any.
Billyhyw

Pretty much every console to pc port looks better on console are you kidding me?

Those are console ports? LOL um R6 Vegas looks identical to the pc version other hten it only supports 720p.

I was talking about SC.Da, Hitman Blood Money, NFS,MW, and TR.L just to name a few thanks.

I didnt even clip the link I guess thats a Quake 4 image? The game ported using Direct X and it requries Open Gl so it ran horrible.? I would like see a pc run Gears of War from 2004. Hell if pc is crushing console why cant a pc from 2006 run a game that looks even remotely close to as good as Gears of War?

And before you say "but but teh graphics dont look that good"

Best graphics award winner technical in the "OVERALL CATEGORIES" goes to what do you know a 360 game. The pc has been owned miserably this year sorry end thread.

Of course there are some pcs that can run GeoW? According to Mark Rein though its not coming to pc because the average gaming rig wont run it well. So its obvious an issue. Regardless would of , could of and should of dont matter. You obviously think the 360 isnt capable of making Quake 4 run better? Facts are facts and right now GeoW is the best looking game on the market its done on a 400 dollar console.

Errr Microsoft owns the rights to Gears not Epic in other words it gets ported when Microsoft says it does. Epic was simply stating not enough pcs can run it well its really not worth doing it right now especially sinceits already sold over 5 mill on hte 360 and is doing just fine on 1 platform.

How is this still a debate? 

PC's and Consoles both have their ups and downs.  Pc's will always have the cutting edge in graphics, but with it will always be incompatibility issues, framerates issues in some, and the need to upgrade about every two years.

With consoles you have the luxary of being able to plug and play at a much lower price.  It's much more user friendly, but games will sometimes be modified from their PC counterparts in order to play or run correctly on them. 

How is this still a debate? 

PC's and Consoles both have their ups and downs.  Pc's will always have the cutting edge in graphics, but with it will always be incompatibility issues, framerates issues in some, and the need to upgrade about every two years.

With consoles you have the luxary of being able to plug and play at a much lower price.  It's much more user friendly, but games will sometimes be modified from their PC counterparts in order to play or run correctly on them. 

Donkey_Puncher

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="tag_001"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="F-Minus"]Nah don't push it. Doom 3 on the xbox looks like a modified Quake 3 engine. Seriously it's blurry textures make me sick compared to the PC version. Let alone the lighting which is almost non-exsistant on the Xbox version. But frankly it's well known that PCs are superior to consoles in every aspect. And for that you don't have to have $2000.
cobrax25

Um no there not. Pc doesnt even have the best looking game on the market now that goes for a 400 dollar console. And if you like Action Adventure games, Racing games, Fighting games, JRPGS the pc is worthelss. Consoels are also much easier to lose and give you 3x more bang for your buck.

1. GT and Forza are the number one recing games franchizes taht will continue when there released. Yes the pc has decent racers but overall there better on consoles.

2.I was simply replying to his unreasonable statment. Yes pc does ok with racers and Action adventure( although both are clearly superior on console) but it is worthless for fighting games. And consoles have some exclusive FPS games that are really good. What exclusive Action Adventure game does pc have>? I name this genre because these are the two main genres for there respective platfroms.

3. Pc gmaes last longer? Not anymore they dont thanks to online play and patches. And as I said if you trade in old games are buy games used console games cost no more then pc games.

If your going to count all the pc exclusives then why dont we count all the Xbox and xbox 360 games since most the xbox games are now playable on the 360.  Now that console games are online and the arrival of XNA console games ill have mods and just as much replay value as pc games.  Hell people have been playing Halo2 for almsot 3 years now.  Now that console gaming online is regular you can expect just as much replay value.

Let me explain why Microsoft placed only 512 MB RAM instead of at least 1 GB RAM. Microsoft chose 512 MB RAM because it's already pretty big for the consoles. The reason why you need more RAM for PCs are because of the operating system. It requires a great chunk of memory to delegate its core system for networking, graphics, hard disc caching, graphics cache and yada-yada-yada. However, on consoles, the operating system is just a firmware with many API parts to it, like Direct X (for this instance for Windows and XBOX 360). Firmware-based operating system are generally really really small for both storage and memory. However, PC operating systems are very bulky. Take for instance, Windows Vista, when I first boot up my computer (with only 1 GB RAM), it already used up 42% of my Physical Memory. When I run applications like Windows Live Messenger, Mozilla Firefox and Windows Media Player, you already pumped it to 50%. If I am playing Battlefield 2142 on Medium settings (without any software behind it and with core services), it will already bump my physical memory to somewhere about 95% used. Which at least 42% of that 95% is the operating system. There's no need for Microsoft to add more costs to their production to give too much memory to the system. 512 MB is already a decent size compared to Playstation 3's 256 MB XDRRAM (its main memory). Furthermore, console games usually take less memory to run than PC games, with the same quality. You'll always get stunning graphics on both machines, but the coding for consoles are generally more efficient in memory size than PC games too. Another thing is that Microsoft has made the whole system using a graphics memory technology. This is called GDDR3. GDDR3's bandwidth is a lot faster than most common RAM types like DDR and DDR2 and it's memory/power efficiency is also higher too. Therefore, you really don't need the 1GB or 2GB most PC gamers come to expect for running high-quality games like Quake 4 or Oblivion on both systems.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="F-Minus"]Well hold it there.

Which console to PC ports should look better on the console. It's pretty few of them if any.
Billyhyw

Pretty much every console to pc port looks better on console are you kidding me?

Those are console ports? LOL um R6 Vegas looks identical to the pc version other hten it only supports 720p.

I was talking about SC.Da, Hitman Blood Money, NFS,MW, and TR.L just to name a few thanks.

I didnt even clip the link I guess thats a Quake 4 image? The game ported using Direct X and it requries Open Gl so it ran horrible.? I would like see a pc run Gears of War from 2004. Hell if pc is crushing console why cant a pc from 2006 run a game that looks even remotely close to as good as Gears of War?

And before you say "but but teh graphics dont look that good"

Best graphics award winner technical in the "OVERALL CATEGORIES" goes to what do you know a 360 game. The pc has been owned miserably this year sorry end thread.

Of course there are some pcs that can run GeoW?  According to Mark Rein though its not coming to pc because the average gaming rig wont run it well.  So its obvious an issue. Regardless would of , could of and should of dont matter.  You obviously think the 360 isnt capable of making Quake 4 run better?  Facts are facts and right now GeoW is the best looking game on the market its done on a 400 dollar console.

Its only aguably among fanboys right now it is the best.  And know you would need alot more then a 7900GS to run GeoW as good as the 360.  Mainly because the game takes great advantage of the system.  Im sure it will come to the pc so we will find out in due time but im guessing maybe an x1950?  maybe even higher just because of how well it was optimized for the 360.  And I have played the crap out of the fully modded version of Oblivion( even made the moon look like the Death Star) and it still doesnt look better then GeoW .  It is a gorgeus lookin game though for both the pc and 360 . But the CGI quality graphics of Gears are a new standard.

A. If your going to count all the pc exclusives then why dont we count all the Xbox and xbox 360 games since most the xbox games are now playable on the 360.  B. Now that console games are online and the arrival of XNA console games ill have mods and just as much replay value as pc games.  Hell people have been playing Halo2 for almsot 3 years now.  Now that console gaming online is regular you can expect just as much replay value.

Billyhyw

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"]You mean Gears would look better just like TRL and SC.DA did on pc. Um no sorry If they came out at the same time Gears would look better on the 360 as they spent 3 years buidling it ground up for the 360 sorry thats a fact.

And perhaps you need to read the post a little better. He said here is a pc game from 2004 owning your console. And he posted HL2. Now the fact that anyone argues HL2 looks better then EVERYTHING on the 360 is laughable in my opionion and its simply plain pathetic.

Now an answer to you. Yes I do know the differnce between DX and Open Gl. Dx is a Microsoft IP with a set of instructions that must be followed. Open Gl has a much wider and open set of instructions but if you port in between the two you would have to make things work to fit the other and unless your very good and spend lots of time and money( which obviously the Quake4 team didnt) then its going to turn out horribly.

Now Since i just owned you is there any other questions you would like me to answer? Ill bring things here because I know knowledge about the topic I unlike others are not cluless fanboys that make random things up about games and systems I have never played.F-Minus

Look there's no point discussion with you. You know what api belongs to who but that's everything you know what it is. The difference you aren't able to tell just as I thought.

The sooner you accept that the PC is supperior to any console the less you will cry when playing games 1 year from now. It always was like that and it will always be like that, at least until consoles wont be upgreadable, but that wouldn't make any point, migh aswell just buy a PC instead then.

Err can you not read i just explained to you.  Let me teach you a little.  Lets say you want to put HDR in a game.  You cant use HDR unless your using Direct X.  So "O NO THE PS3 IS OWNED BECAUSE IT CANT DO HDR" Err not really it can emulate HDR or it can create its own lighting effect that may even be better.  In other words Open Gl is a much more open platform .  Im not going to spend 3 hours educating you on the subject if you want to discuss it intelegently then do so but dont insult my knowledge on the topic.

As for you saying PC gaming is superior thats simplay a matter of choice I for one like console gaming better it simply has more genreas that appeal to me and what you get for your money is far beyond pc. 

[QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="tag_001"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="F-Minus"]Nah don't push it. Doom 3 on the xbox looks like a modified Quake 3 engine. Seriously it's blurry textures make me sick compared to the PC version. Let alone the lighting which is almost non-exsistant on the Xbox version. But frankly it's well known that PCs are superior to consoles in every aspect. And for that you don't have to have $2000.
Billyhyw

Um no there not. Pc doesnt even have the best looking game on the market now that goes for a 400 dollar console. And if you like Action Adventure games, Racing games, Fighting games, JRPGS the pc is worthelss. Consoels are also much easier to lose and give you 3x more bang for your buck.

1. GT and Forza are the number one recing games franchizes taht will continue when there released. Yes the pc has decent racers but overall there better on consoles.

2.I was simply replying to his unreasonable statment. Yes pc does ok with racers and Action adventure( although both are clearly superior on console) but it is worthless for fighting games. And consoles have some exclusive FPS games that are really good. What exclusive Action Adventure game does pc have>? I name this genre because these are the two main genres for there respective platfroms.

3. Pc gmaes last longer? Not anymore they dont thanks to online play and patches. And as I said if you trade in old games are buy games used console games cost no more then pc games.

If your going to count all the pc exclusives then why dont we count all the Xbox and xbox 360 games since most the xbox games are now playable on the 360. Now that console games are online and the arrival of XNA console games ill have mods and just as much replay value as pc games. Hell people have been playing Halo2 for almsot 3 years now. Now that console gaming online is regular you can expect just as much replay value.

Let me explain why Microsoft placed only 512 MB RAM instead of at least 1 GB RAM. Microsoft chose 512 MB RAM because it's already pretty big for the consoles. The reason why you need more RAM for PCs are because of the operating system. It requires a great chunk of memory to delegate its core system for networking, graphics, hard disc caching, graphics cache and yada-yada-yada. However, on consoles, the operating system is just a firmware with many API parts to it, like Direct X (for this instance for Windows and XBOX 360). Firmware-based operating system are generally really really small for both storage and memory. However, PC operating systems are very bulky. Take for instance, Windows Vista, when I first boot up my computer (with only 1 GB RAM), it already used up 42% of my Physical Memory. When I run applications like Windows Live Messenger, Mozilla Firefox and Windows Media Player, you already pumped it to 50%. If I am playing Battlefield 2142 on Medium settings (without any software behind it and with core services), it will already bump my physical memory to somewhere about 95% used. Which at least 42% of that 95% is the operating system. There's no need for Microsoft to add more costs to their production to give too much memory to the system. 512 MB is already a decent size compared to Playstation 3's 256 MB XDRRAM (its main memory). Furthermore, console games usually take less memory to run than PC games, with the same quality. You'll always get stunning graphics on both machines, but the coding for consoles are generally more efficient in memory size than PC games too. Another thing is that Microsoft has made the whole system using a graphics memory technology. This is called GDDR3. GDDR3's bandwidth is a lot faster than most common RAM types like DDR and DDR2 and it's memory/power efficiency is also higher too. Therefore, you really don't need the 1GB or 2GB most PC gamers come to expect for running high-quality games like Quake 4 or Oblivion on both systems.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="F-Minus"]Well hold it there.

Which console to PC ports should look better on the console. It's pretty few of them if any.
muscleserge

Pretty much every console to pc port looks better on console are you kidding me?

Those are console ports? LOL um R6 Vegas looks identical to the pc version other hten it only supports 720p.

I was talking about SC.Da, Hitman Blood Money, NFS,MW, and TR.L just to name a few thanks.

I didnt even clip the link I guess thats a Quake 4 image? The game ported using Direct X and it requries Open Gl so it ran horrible.? I would like see a pc run Gears of War from 2004. Hell if pc is crushing console why cant a pc from 2006 run a game that looks even remotely close to as good as Gears of War?

And before you say "but but teh graphics dont look that good"

Best graphics award winner technical in the "OVERALL CATEGORIES" goes to what do you know a 360 game. The pc has been owned miserably this year sorry end thread.

Of course there are some pcs that can run GeoW?  According to Mark Rein though its not coming to pc because the average gaming rig wont run it well.  So its obvious an issue. Regardless would of , could of and should of dont matter.  You obviously think the 360 isnt capable of making Quake 4 run better?  Facts are facts and right now GeoW is the best looking game on the market its done on a 400 dollar console.

Its only aguably among fanboys right now it is the best.  And know you would need alot more then a 7900GS to run GeoW as good as the 360.  Mainly because the game takes great advantage of the system.  Im sure it will come to the pc so we will find out in due time but im guessing maybe an x1950?  maybe even higher just because of how well it was optimized for the 360.  And I have played the crap out of the fully modded version of Oblivion( even made the moon look like the Death Star) and it still doesnt look better then GeoW .  It is a gorgeus lookin game though for both the pc and 360 . But the CGI quality graphics of Gears are a new standard.

A 7800gtx doesnt have any fill rate advantages over the 360 even rawpower wise the Xenos has more advantages then a 7800gtx.  Now take into account that Gears of War is hardly going to be the best you see from the 360.  As for me posting screeens I have a much better idea.  Go buy a 360 and play Gears of War.  I dont think theres any screen shots that do the game justice.  One reason why is unless the screen shot is taken directly from a dev kit that means it was taken with a camera and then posted( thus loosing quality of the pic) Pc screens can be drectly shot and then sent showing you the exact quality of what the game looks like. The only way you can see what a console game actually looks like by a pic is if its taken from a dev kit and I dont have one.

So answer me this question  please.  Have you played Gears of War? 

and if not why are you arguing with me?  Go play it and then tell me it doenst look as good as Oblivon lol.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="F-Minus"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]I didnt even clip the link I guess thats a Quake 4 image? The game ported using Direct X and it requries Open Gl so it ran horrible.? I would like see a pc run Gears of War from 2004. Hell if pc is crushing console why cant a pc from 2006 run a game that looks even remotely close to as good as Gears of War?

And before you say "but but teh graphics dont look that good"

Best graphics award winner technical in the "OVERALL CATEGORIES" goes to what do you know a 360 game. The pc has been owned miserably this year sorry end thread.jwcyclone15

Heh, if Gears of War would be released on the PC at the same time as for consoles it would look just the same (straight port) or even better if they decided to change it a bit for the PC. The fact is that Gears of War is the first game along with R6:Vegas using the UE3.0 engine. And as you see with Vegas there is no real difference aside from PC version having support for greater resolutions and running above 30FPS and looking slightly better. So would be Gears of War. And what has the year 2004 to do with Gears of War or the PC.

Just becasue there isn't any such games at the moment, doesn't mean the PC can't do it. I'll remember you when Crysis hits the shelves where your Xbox360 games are that look so nice. Besides, do you think when Crysis comes, every PC out there will be obsolete. 2 year old rigs will be able to run it, probably not at the highest settings but still.

And a question: I bet you don't know the difference between DirectX and OpenGL so why even bring it in here. Don't start something you don't have a clue about or you might get burned :), just an advice.

You mean Gears would look better just like TRL and SC.DA did on pc. Um no sorry If they came out at the same time Gears would look better on the 360 as they spent 3 years buidling it ground up for the 360 sorry thats a fact.

And perhaps you need to read the post a little better. He said here is a pc game from 2004 owning your console. And he posted HL2. Now the fact that anyone argues HL2 looks better then EVERYTHING on the 360 is laughable in my opionion and its simply plain pathetic.

Now an answer to you. Yes I do know the differnce between DX and Open Gl. Dx is a Microsoft IP with a set of instructions that must be followed. Open Gl has a much wider and open set of instructions but if you port in between the two you would have to make things work to fit the other and unless your very good and spend lots of time and money( which obviously the Quake4 team didnt) then its going to turn out horribly.

Now Since i just owned you is there any other questions you would like me to answer? Ill bring things here because I know knowledge about the topic I unlike others are not cluless fanboys that make random things up about games and systems I have never played.

Um no it doesnt .  And Gamespot doesnt even mention that it does.  On a x1900 the shadows looked worse and it had framerate problems.  Maybe they fixed this with a patch but last time I checked it ddint look as good as the 360 version.

If your going to count all the pc exclusives then why dont we count all the Xbox and xbox 360 games since most the xbox games are now playable on the 360. Now that console games are online and the arrival of XNA console games ill have mods and just as much replay value as pc games. Hell people have been playing Halo2 for almsot 3 years now. Now that console gaming online is regular you can expect just as much replay value.

Billyhyw

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="F-Minus"]Well hold it there.

Which console to PC ports should look better on the console. It's pretty few of them if any.
cobrax25

Pretty much every console to pc port looks better on console are you kidding me?

Those are console ports? LOL um R6 Vegas looks identical to the pc version other hten it only supports 720p.

I was talking about SC.Da, Hitman Blood Money, NFS,MW, and TR.L just to name a few thanks.

I didnt even clip the link I guess thats a Quake 4 image? The game ported using Direct X and it requries Open Gl so it ran horrible.? I would like see a pc run Gears of War from 2004. Hell if pc is crushing console why cant a pc from 2006 run a game that looks even remotely close to as good as Gears of War?

And before you say "but but teh graphics dont look that good"

Best graphics award winner technical in the "OVERALL CATEGORIES" goes to what do you know a 360 game. The pc has been owned miserably this year sorry end thread.

Of course there are some pcs that can run GeoW? According to Mark Rein though its not coming to pc because the average gaming rig wont run it well. So its obvious an issue. Regardless would of , could of and should of dont matter. You obviously think the 360 isnt capable of making Quake 4 run better? Facts are facts and right now GeoW is the best looking game on the market its done on a 400 dollar console.

Errr Microsoft owns the rights to Gears not Epic in other words it gets ported when Microsoft says it does. Epic was simply stating not enough pcs can run it well its really not worth doing it right now especially sinceits already sold over 5 mill on hte 360 and is doing just fine on 1 platform.

Yes and for your sakes I hope its better.  Halo 1 came out a year after the xbox version and still looked worse then what it did on the xbox. ( at least on my TI4600) a card that was supposedly much more powerful then the xbox. 

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"][QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]

I was using a $2000 PC as an example of high-end PCs.  I know you can build one for cheaper, but I meant finding a PC in a store that will pump out the best possible graphics and run the latest greatest software.  That would be about $2000 or even more right??

And to those who said that I don't know anything about computers...you're right to an extent.  I just know that PCs are generally expensive and I don't game on them.

AvIdGaMeR444

I'll be quiet now since you're being so nice about it....Thanx for your witty reply :roll:

[QUOTE="gnutux"]ooo... PC vs. console war :p ok, one thing seems to fail to let me see how a PC is better than a console in gaming. Aside from the ability to mod the damn thing, I don't see why I would want to use a PC for gaming. The KBM (keyboard & mouse) is really annoying IMHO unless I'm playing Guild Wars or any strategy game. Let's look at the technicals between an XBOX 360 vs. a top-of-the line PC. I've wrote a comparison before here: http://www.astahost.com/index.php?showtopic=12502&st=0&p=81555&#entry81555 back in June, 2006. Of course technology has changed. However, when you compare an ATI X1950 card with XBOX 360's ATI Xenos graphics chip, they are essentially the same, except that the 1950 card can use CrossFire, which makes the box more expensive but has better animations. However, the Xenos takes graphics chip to the next level by adding a 10 MB eDRAM, which dramatically increases the data speed so that the processor/GPU can work faster with faster memory. Another thing people who don't seem to understand why consoles have less RAM than PCs. Here's the explanation I typed up last week to someone asking me this on Gamespot

Let me explain why Microsoft placed only 512 MB RAM instead of at least 1 GB RAM. Microsoft chose 512 MB RAM because it's already pretty big for the consoles. The reason why you need more RAM for PCs are because of the operating system. It requires a great chunk of memory to delegate its core system for networking, graphics, hard disc caching, graphics cache and yada-yada-yada. However, on consoles, the operating system is just a firmware with many API parts to it, like Direct X (for this instance for Windows and XBOX 360). Firmware-based operating system are generally really really small for both storage and memory. However, PC operating systems are very bulky. Take for instance, Windows Vista, when I first boot up my computer (with only 1 GB RAM), it already used up 42% of my Physical Memory. When I run applications like Windows Live Messenger, Mozilla Firefox and Windows Media Player, you already pumped it to 50%. If I am playing Battlefield 2142 on Medium settings (without any software behind it and with core services), it will already bump my physical memory to somewhere about 95% used. Which at least 42% of that 95% is the operating system. There's no need for Microsoft to add more costs to their production to give too much memory to the system. 512 MB is already a decent size compared to Playstation 3's 256 MB XDRRAM (its main memory). Furthermore, console games usually take less memory to run than PC games, with the same quality. You'll always get stunning graphics on both machines, but the coding for consoles are generally more efficient in memory size than PC games too. Another thing is that Microsoft has made the whole system using a graphics memory technology. This is called GDDR3. GDDR3's bandwidth is a lot faster than most common RAM types like DDR and DDR2 and it's memory/power efficiency is also higher too. Therefore, you really don't need the 1GB or 2GB most PC gamers come to expect for running high-quality games like Quake 4 or Oblivion on both systems. muscleserge

Next, is the processor. The XBOX 360 features a tri-core single chip processor. Each core is clocked at 3.2 GHz with SMP and VMX-128 enabled. This amount of power is far greater than many computers in the industry. It is only beaten by quad-core machines. The real reason, as I have stated in the link above, the POWER architecture delivers more power with less frequency than the x86 processor that gamers use. This translates to better loading times, and gameplay speed. As for having graphics worst than PCs, this is not true, unless you have SLi or CrossFire-enabled cards. If you put them one by one, the XBOX 360 surpasses the PC with the single GPU. Furthermore, most 2-GPU cards are already about CAD$600, while my XBOX 360, including the tri-core CPU is already CAD$600 (Premium). As I've totaled up from the stores in my area with the cheapest gamer parts that give me an approximate equivalent speed: CAD$1920.83 (all tax included). This is only just an ASUS AM2 SLi mobo, AMD FX-62 2.8 GHz processor, 1 BFG GeForce 7900 GS (w/ 256MB GDDR3) and 2 GB of Cosair Value Memory. It's still cheaper if I bought a cheap PC for my work, instant messaging and etc. and get a console on top of that. PC gaming is still to expensive. You'll never get the bang-to-buck ratio on the PC than on consoles. I know this because I'm a PC gamer who has gone over to console gaming. gnutux

Highlited in bold because you have no clue what your talking about plesae reframe from speaking.

This looks nothing like CGI, and don't expect too much improvement from the 360 in the future, no level of optimization can compensate for a simple upgrade of a video card.muscleserge

That is the worst pic I have ever seen of that game.  I can play it on a SDTV and it looks better then that.  Fact is you never plaeyd the game have you?  And yes optimization can make up for Graphic card upgrades and then some.  The PS2 went from Oni to God of War2 in its lifetime.  The 360 has already gone from Cod2 to Gears of War?  Your telling me thats not equal to the differnce of a new graphic card?  Are you kidding me?

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

If your going to count all the pc exclusives then why dont we count all the Xbox and xbox 360 games since most the xbox games are now playable on the 360. Now that console games are online and the arrival of XNA console games ill have mods and just as much replay value as pc games. Hell people have been playing Halo2 for almsot 3 years now. Now that console gaming online is regular you can expect just as much replay value.

F-Minus

Um then lets compare all the games from 1980 and ill compare all the AAA games i can play on my 360 and PS3.  Its fair to compare since I can buy both for cheaper then a good gaming rig (1000$).  That gives me acess to thousands of titles( yes Ps3 plays virually all PS1 and 2 games).  O wait here comes the "but but you are using 2 platforms vs 1" of course I am because the pc is such a open ended platform all you people that compare it to one console is ridiculous it has no competiton among its companys that would stop games from coming to it. 

As for dedicated sever support the PS3 is doing that already.  The 360 does it close ended because it wants a single community and whats wrong with that? I can talk to my freind when hes playing Halo 2 and im playing Lost planet.  It is extremely easy to find a game and much less lag then the noobs that come into a game of CS with a dial up connection to ruin it for everyone. Deadicated sever are not Xbox live is a outstanding online expereince and very reliable.

As for your Halo vs CS review yea I see the differnce.  And that doesnt help your case anymore.  That just proves that those 100,000 couldnt find a better game to play in 6 years while Xbox owners moved on with something they thought was alot better.

[QUOTE="jwcyclone15"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="jwcyclone15"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="F-Minus"]Well hold it there.

Which console to PC ports should look better on the console. It's pretty few of them if any.
Billyhyw

Pretty much every console to pc port looks better on console are you kidding me?

Those are console ports? LOL um R6 Vegas looks identical to the pc version other hten it only supports 720p.

I was talking about SC.Da, Hitman Blood Money, NFS,MW, and TR.L just to name a few thanks.

Every game i mentioned looks better are equal on console. SC.Da looks cearly better on the 360 then it does my x1900.

I was saying the 360 version looked better noob read my other 6 post.

[QUOTE="F-Minus"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

If your going to count all the pc exclusives then why dont we count all the Xbox and xbox 360 games since most the xbox games are now playable on the 360. Now that console games are online and the arrival of XNA console games ill have mods and just as much replay value as pc games. Hell people have been playing Halo2 for almsot 3 years now. Now that console gaming online is regular you can expect just as much replay value.

Billyhyw

Um then lets compare all the games from 1980 and ill compare all the AAA games i can play on my 360 and PS3. Its fair to compare since I can buy both for cheaper then a good gaming rig (1000$). That gives me acess to thousands of titles( yes Ps3 plays virually all PS1 and 2 games). O wait here comes the "but but you are using 2 platforms vs 1" of course I am because the pc is such a open ended platform all you people that compare it to one console is ridiculous it has no competiton among its companys that would stop games from coming to it.

As for dedicated sever support the PS3 is doing that already. The 360 does it close ended because it wants a single community and whats wrong with that? I can talk to my freind when hes playing Halo 2 and im playing Lost planet. It is extremely easy to find a game and much less lag then the noobs that come into a game of CS with a dial up connection to ruin it for everyone. Deadicated sever are not Xbox live is a outstanding online expereince and very reliable.

As for your Halo vs CS review yea I see the differnce. And that doesnt help your case anymore. That just proves that those 100,000 couldnt find a better game to play in 6 years while Xbox owners moved on with something they thought was alot better.

[QUOTE="jwcyclone15"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="F-Minus"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]I didnt even clip the link I guess thats a Quake 4 image? The game ported using Direct X and it requries Open Gl so it ran horrible.? I would like see a pc run Gears of War from 2004. Hell if pc is crushing console why cant a pc from 2006 run a game that looks even remotely close to as good as Gears of War?

And before you say "but but teh graphics dont look that good"

Best graphics award winner technical in the "OVERALL CATEGORIES" goes to what do you know a 360 game. The pc has been owned miserably this year sorry end thread.Billyhyw

Heh, if Gears of War would be released on the PC at the same time as for consoles it would look just the same (straight port) or even better if they decided to change it a bit for the PC. The fact is that Gears of War is the first game along with R6:Vegas using the UE3.0 engine. And as you see with Vegas there is no real difference aside from PC version having support for greater resolutions and running above 30FPS and looking slightly better. So would be Gears of War. And what has the year 2004 to do with Gears of War or the PC.

Just becasue there isn't any such games at the moment, doesn't mean the PC can't do it. I'll remember you when Crysis hits the shelves where your Xbox360 games are that look so nice. Besides, do you think when Crysis comes, every PC out there will be obsolete. 2 year old rigs will be able to run it, probably not at the highest settings but still.

And a question: I bet you don't know the difference between DirectX and OpenGL so why even bring it in here. Don't start something you don't have a clue about or you might get burned :), just an advice.

You mean Gears would look better just like TRL and SC.DA did on pc. Um no sorry If they came out at the same time Gears would look better on the 360 as they spent 3 years buidling it ground up for the 360 sorry thats a fact.

And perhaps you need to read the post a little better. He said here is a pc game from 2004 owning your console. And he posted HL2. Now the fact that anyone argues HL2 looks better then EVERYTHING on the 360 is laughable in my opionion and its simply plain pathetic.

Now an answer to you. Yes I do know the differnce between DX and Open Gl. Dx is a Microsoft IP with a set of instructions that must be followed. Open Gl has a much wider and open set of instructions but if you port in between the two you would have to make things work to fit the other and unless your very good and spend lots of time and money( which obviously the Quake4 team didnt) then its going to turn out horribly.

Now Since i just owned you is there any other questions you would like me to answer? Ill bring things here because I know knowledge about the topic I unlike others are not cluless fanboys that make random things up about games and systems I have never played.

Um no it doesnt . And Gamespot doesnt even mention that it does. On a x1900 the shadows looked worse and it had framerate problems. Maybe they fixed this with a patch but last time I checked it ddint look as good as the 360 version.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"] This looks nothing like CGI, and don't expect too much improvement from the 360 in the future, no level of optimization can compensate for a simple upgrade of a video card.Billyhyw

That is the worst pic I have ever seen of that game.  I can play it on a SDTV and it looks better then that.  Fact is you never plaeyd the game have you?  And yes optimization can make up for Graphic card upgrades and then some.  The PS2 went from Oni to God of War2 in its lifetime.  The 360 has already gone from Cod2 to Gears of War?  Your telling me thats not equal to the differnce of a new graphic card?  Are you kidding me?

Let me explain why Microsoft placed only 512 MB RAM instead of at least 1 GB RAM. Microsoft chose 512 MB RAM because it's already pretty big for the consoles. The reason why you need more RAM for PCs are because of the operating system. It requires a great chunk of memory to delegate its core system for networking, graphics, hard disc caching, graphics cache and yada-yada-yada. However, on consoles, the operating system is just a firmware with many API parts to it, like Direct X (for this instance for Windows and XBOX 360). Firmware-based operating system are generally really really small for both storage and memory. However, PC operating systems are very bulky. Take for instance, Windows Vista, when I first boot up my computer (with only 1 GB RAM), it already used up 42% of my Physical Memory. When I run applications like Windows Live Messenger, Mozilla Firefox and Windows Media Player, you already pumped it to 50%. If I am playing Battlefield 2142 on Medium settings (without any software behind it and with core services), it will already bump my physical memory to somewhere about 95% used. Which at least 42% of that 95% is the operating system. There's no need for Microsoft to add more costs to their production to give too much memory to the system. 512 MB is already a decent size compared to Playstation 3's 256 MB XDRRAM (its main memory). Furthermore, console games usually take less memory to run than PC games, with the same quality. You'll always get stunning graphics on both machines, but the coding for consoles are generally more efficient in memory size than PC games too. Another thing is that Microsoft has made the whole system using a graphics memory technology. This is called GDDR3. GDDR3's bandwidth is a lot faster than most common RAM types like DDR and DDR2 and it's memory/power efficiency is also higher too. Therefore, you really don't need the 1GB or 2GB most PC gamers come to expect for running high-quality games like Quake 4 or Oblivion on both systems.

the xbox 360 is pc gaming for noobs!

hermits for life!

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="gnutux"]ooo... PC vs. console war :p ok, one thing seems to fail to let me see how a PC is better than a console in gaming. Aside from the ability to mod the damn thing, I don't see why I would want to use a PC for gaming. The KBM (keyboard & mouse) is really annoying IMHO unless I'm playing Guild Wars or any strategy game. Let's look at the technicals between an XBOX 360 vs. a top-of-the line PC. I've wrote a comparison before here: http://www.astahost.com/index.php?showtopic=12502&st=0&p=81555&#entry81555 back in June, 2006. Of course technology has changed. However, when you compare an ATI X1950 card with XBOX 360's ATI Xenos graphics chip, they are essentially the same, except that the 1950 card can use CrossFire, which makes the box more expensive but has better animations. However, the Xenos takes graphics chip to the next level by adding a 10 MB eDRAM, which dramatically increases the data speed so that the processor/GPU can work faster with faster memory. Another thing people who don't seem to understand why consoles have less RAM than PCs. Here's the explanation I typed up last week to someone asking me this on Gamespot

Let me explain why Microsoft placed only 512 MB RAM instead of at least 1 GB RAM. Microsoft chose 512 MB RAM because it's already pretty big for the consoles. The reason why you need more RAM for PCs are because of the operating system. It requires a great chunk of memory to delegate its core system for networking, graphics, hard disc caching, graphics cache and yada-yada-yada. However, on consoles, the operating system is just a firmware with many API parts to it, like Direct X (for this instance for Windows and XBOX 360). Firmware-based operating system are generally really really small for both storage and memory. However, PC operating systems are very bulky. Take for instance, Windows Vista, when I first boot up my computer (with only 1 GB RAM), it already used up 42% of my Physical Memory. When I run applications like Windows Live Messenger, Mozilla Firefox and Windows Media Player, you already pumped it to 50%. If I am playing Battlefield 2142 on Medium settings (without any software behind it and with core services), it will already bump my physical memory to somewhere about 95% used. Which at least 42% of that 95% is the operating system. There's no need for Microsoft to add more costs to their production to give too much memory to the system. 512 MB is already a decent size compared to Playstation 3's 256 MB XDRRAM (its main memory). Furthermore, console games usually take less memory to run than PC games, with the same quality. You'll always get stunning graphics on both machines, but the coding for consoles are generally more efficient in memory size than PC games too. Another thing is that Microsoft has made the whole system using a graphics memory technology. This is called GDDR3. GDDR3's bandwidth is a lot faster than most common RAM types like DDR and DDR2 and it's memory/power efficiency is also higher too. Therefore, you really don't need the 1GB or 2GB most PC gamers come to expect for running high-quality games like Quake 4 or Oblivion on both systems. gnutux

Next, is the processor. The XBOX 360 features a tri-core single chip processor. Each core is clocked at 3.2 GHz with SMP and VMX-128 enabled. This amount of power is far greater than many computers in the industry. It is only beaten by quad-core machines. The real reason, as I have stated in the link above, the POWER architecture delivers more power with less frequency than the x86 processor that gamers use. This translates to better loading times, and gameplay speed. As for having graphics worst than PCs, this is not true, unless you have SLi or CrossFire-enabled cards. If you put them one by one, the XBOX 360 surpasses the PC with the single GPU. Furthermore, most 2-GPU cards are already about CAD$600, while my XBOX 360, including the tri-core CPU is already CAD$600 (Premium). As I've totaled up from the stores in my area with the cheapest gamer parts that give me an approximate equivalent speed: CAD$1920.83 (all tax included). This is only just an ASUS AM2 SLi mobo, AMD FX-62 2.8 GHz processor, 1 BFG GeForce 7900 GS (w/ 256MB GDDR3) and 2 GB of Cosair Value Memory. It's still cheaper if I bought a cheap PC for my work, instant messaging and etc. and get a console on top of that. PC gaming is still to expensive. You'll never get the bang-to-buck ratio on the PC than on consoles. I know this because I'm a PC gamer who has gone over to console gaming. gnutux

The 3 X360 cores are in-order processors, which are weaksauce.

Let me explain why Microsoft placed only 512 MB RAM instead of at least 1 GB RAM. Microsoft chose 512 MB RAM because it's already pretty big for the consoles. The reason why you need more RAM for PCs are because of the operating system. It requires a great chunk of memory to delegate its core system for networking, graphics, hard disc caching, graphics cache and yada-yada-yada. However, on consoles, the operating system is just a firmware with many API parts to it, like Direct X (for this instance for Windows and XBOX 360). Firmware-based operating system are generally really really small for both storage and memory. However, PC operating systems are very bulky. Take for instance, Windows Vista, when I first boot up my computer (with only 1 GB RAM), it already used up 42% of my Physical Memory. When I run applications like Windows Live Messenger, Mozilla Firefox and Windows Media Player, you already pumped it to 50%. If I am playing Battlefield 2142 on Medium settings (without any software behind it and with core services), it will already bump my physical memory to somewhere about 95% used. Which at least 42% of that 95% is the operating system. There's no need for Microsoft to add more costs to their production to give too much memory to the system. 512 MB is already a decent size compared to Playstation 3's 256 MB XDRRAM (its main memory). Furthermore, console games usually take less memory to run than PC games, with the same quality. You'll always get stunning graphics on both machines, but the coding for consoles are generally more efficient in memory size than PC games too. Another thing is that Microsoft has made the whole system using a graphics memory technology. This is called GDDR3. GDDR3's bandwidth is a lot faster than most common RAM types like DDR and DDR2 and it's memory/power efficiency is also higher too. Therefore, you really don't need the 1GB or 2GB most PC gamers come to expect for running high-quality games like Quake 4 or Oblivion on both systems.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]Exactly which is alwasy important that you look at the idivisual game instead of saying "All games look better" On a certail platform like are previous poster did. Billyhyw

No because not in any of my post did I say the 360 "ALWAYS RUNS" games better then the pc. Im simply saying if you have a 400 dollar console that came make a good looking game by any standards(SC.DA) look better then a high end pc. And make other ports close to high end pc, and exclusives that look better then anything on the pc(right now) then dont you see the reason why people own the 400 dollar console?

I can use several.  On my card wich is an X1900.  The following games look equal or better on the 360.

Tomb Raider Legends

Sc.Da

Hitman Blood Money.

NFS.MW.

Now Fear?  It has several areas in which it clearly looks better then the pc version.  Superior lighting, better particle effects, better physics.  The pc version does support higher res and such but the 360 version of F.E.A.R holds very favorable with the pc version . And if you dont think it looks as good its not even made by the same dev team.  The 360 verison got the second string.( and many think it looks better then the pc version)  Just like the 360 verison of Prey also got a second string team. 

I said it does support higher res dam i thought it was just my typos but you cant read either.

Let me explain why Microsoft placed only 512 MB RAM instead of at least 1 GB RAM. Microsoft chose 512 MB RAM because it's already pretty big for the consoles. The reason why you need more RAM for PCs are because of the operating system. It requires a great chunk of memory to delegate its core system for networking, graphics, hard disc caching, graphics cache and yada-yada-yada. However, on consoles, the operating system is just a firmware with many API parts to it, like Direct X (for this instance for Windows and XBOX 360). Firmware-based operating system are generally really really small for both storage and memory. However, PC operating systems are very bulky. Take for instance, Windows Vista, when I first boot up my computer (with only 1 GB RAM), it already used up 42% of my Physical Memory. When I run applications like Windows Live Messenger, Mozilla Firefox and Windows Media Player, you already pumped it to 50%. If I am playing Battlefield 2142 on Medium settings (without any software behind it and with core services), it will already bump my physical memory to somewhere about 95% used. Which at least 42% of that 95% is the operating system. There's no need for Microsoft to add more costs to their production to give too much memory to the system. 512 MB is already a decent size compared to Playstation 3's 256 MB XDRRAM (its main memory). Furthermore, console games usually take less memory to run than PC games, with the same quality. You'll always get stunning graphics on both machines, but the coding for consoles are generally more efficient in memory size than PC games too. Another thing is that Microsoft has made the whole system using a graphics memory technology. This is called GDDR3. GDDR3's bandwidth is a lot faster than most common RAM types like DDR and DDR2 and it's memory/power efficiency is also higher too. Therefore, you really don't need the 1GB or 2GB most PC gamers come to expect for running high-quality games like Quake 4 or Oblivion on both systems.

hermits don't make graphics thread.:P only lemmings and cows do.Kev_Unreal

[QUOTE="Kev_Unreal"]hermits don't make graphics thread.:P only lemmings and cows do.trix5817

[QUOTE="Kev_Unreal"]hermits don't make graphics thread.:P only lemmings and cows do.trix5817

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Kev_Unreal"]hermits don't make graphics thread.:P only lemmings and cows do.gnutux

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Kev_Unreal"]hermits don't make graphics thread.:P only lemmings and cows do.jwcyclone15

[QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]

I find it funny that hermits will post images of current PC games running on the best possible PC of the moment and compare images to an Xbox 360 title and then say "TLHBO!" I sure would hope that a PC game running on a $2000-$3000 machine would look better than a game on the $400 Xbox 360.

Do hermits find themselves superior that their machine that costs 5 or 6 or 7 times more than the 360 can produce better graphics? If so, then I just don't understand their mentality because hermits can upgrade their graphics card every year and a half while console gamers can't. Hermits have much more expensive machines that can continually be upgraded, yet they make fun of console graphics for being inferior?

On a side note....Doom 3 for the Xbox came close to looking as good as Doom 3 on the PC. If anything, hermits should've been embarrassed by that. Yeah, Doom 3 came out later on Xbox than the PC version...a whole 8 or 9 months later and running on 2001 architecture.

buckfush311

That's you opinion, but there are millions who think differently. I like playing WoW on my PC, but I wouldn't want to play NBA 2K7 or VF5 on my PC. That's the difference.