I'm really friggin happy Crysis and Far Cry 2 are PC exclusives

but then fewer people are gonna play them :(omarguy01

yeah... thats sad but I don't want to have an overall worse experience because they had to compromise for consoles.

Anyway, the PC market is quite large

see this chart.

PC gaming has a larger market share than any console by this chart.... 13 million performance level cards with an average of $245 per card means there are a WHOLE LOT of high-end GPU's out there.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]For Crysis thats fine im talking about other games( like the kid who said Bioshock runs at 60fps on a 7800gtx on max detail) I have played it on a 7800gtx and not it doesnt run it anywhere near close to that framerate on max your lucky if it stays at 30. Dont know if you argued about this with me( cant rememeber). but this is just an example of what im talking about. Lots of hermits assume a game runs a certain way on a GPU without even playing it and that really annoys me. horrowhip

I exaggerated earlier saying that it got 60 FPS, but it gets over 30 FPS on high easily. Oh and FYI the console version of Bioshock runs at 30 FPS...

here are Gamespots Benchmarks.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6177688/index.html

AMD Athlon 64 FX-60, Radeon X1900 XT 256MB, 1GB RAM, Windows XP

37 FPS

The x1900xt is ATi's equivilant of the 7800. The system only had1 GB of RAM, also... And what setting was it on??? Highest settings with 1600*1200 resolution. Want to know what the 360's resolution was? 720p. I guess the 7800 can run Bioshock better than the 360 can.

Now you want to trolling polaris?

ahh silly noob doesnt know how to read benchmarks nore do you know how to make an argument. First of all the x1900 is more powerful then the 7800gtx. Second of all it maxes out at 37fps it does not average at 30fps the 360 stays at 30fps and never drops while the x1900 has dips below 30. Once again you have set yourself up for self ownage . Also dont backtrack on the fact that you said it ran at 60fps it wasnt untill you posted benchmarks from GS showing a more powerful video card running it at half of what you said the 7800gtx ran it at. Case in point im right yet again a x1900 doesnt even run the game at a steady frame rate so how in the hell would a 7800gtx lmao?

Polaris_choice I have not seen one valid point from you in this entire thread. Everyone of your arguements can be shut down because your supposed facts are just your fanboyish thoughts and opinions.Killfox

Wheres your Crysis Avatar? Seriously just shut up nobody takes you seriously.

[QUOTE="Killfox"]Polaris_choice I have not seen one valid point from you in this entire thread. Everyone of your arguements can be shut down because your supposed facts are just your fanboyish thoughts and opinions.Polaris_choice

Wheres your Crysis Avatar? Seriously just shut up nobody takes your seriously.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]For Crysis thats fine im talking about other games( like the kid who said Bioshock runs at 60fps on a 7800gtx on max detail) I have played it on a 7800gtx and not it doesnt run it anywhere near close to that framerate on max your lucky if it stays at 30. Dont know if you argued about this with me( cant rememeber). but this is just an example of what im talking about. Lots of hermits assume a game runs a certain way on a GPU without even playing it and that really annoys me. Polaris_choice

I exaggerated earlier saying that it got 60 FPS, but it gets over 30 FPS on high easily. Oh and FYI the console version of Bioshock runs at 30 FPS...

here are Gamespots Benchmarks.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6177688/index.html

AMD Athlon 64 FX-60, Radeon X1900 XT 256MB, 1GB RAM, Windows XP

37 FPS

The x1900xt is ATi's equivilant of the 7800. The system only had1 GB of RAM, also... And what setting was it on??? Highest settings with 1600*1200 resolution. Want to know what the 360's resolution was? 720p. I guess the 7800 can run Bioshock better than the 360 can.

Now you want to trolling polaris?

ahh silly noob doesnt know how to read benchmarks nore do you know how to make an argument. First of all the x1900 is more powerful then the 7800gtx. Second of all it maxes out at 37fps it does not average at 30fps the 360 stays at 30fps and never drops while the x1900 has dips below 30. Once again you have set yourself up for self ownage . Also dont backtrack on the fact that you said it ran at 60fps it wasnt untill you posted benchmarks from GS showing a more powerful video card running it at half of what you said the 7800gtx ran it at. Case in point im right yet again a x1900 doesnt even run the game at a steady frame rate so how in the hell would a 7800gtx lmao?

the x1900 xt is only as good as the 7800... The x1950xt is as good as the 7900. the 7950 is the best DX9 card out there. And who cares if it dips below 30 sometimes... the 360 version does it too. Averaging 37 FPS at 1600*1200 resolution is much, MUCH better than the 360 can say.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]

[QUOTE="Killfox"]Polaris_choice I have not seen one valid point from you in this entire thread. Everyone of your arguements can be shut down because your supposed facts are just your fanboyish thoughts and opinions.smokeydabear076

Wheres your Crysis Avatar? Seriously just shut up nobody takes your seriously.

Thanks typing police keep up the good work.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]

[QUOTE="Killfox"]Polaris_choice I have not seen one valid point from you in this entire thread. Everyone of your arguements can be shut down because your supposed facts are just your fanboyish thoughts and opinions.Polaris_choice

Wheres your Crysis Avatar? Seriously just shut up nobody takes your seriously.

Thanks typing police keep up the good work.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]For Crysis thats fine im talking about other games( like the kid who said Bioshock runs at 60fps on a 7800gtx on max detail) I have played it on a 7800gtx and not it doesnt run it anywhere near close to that framerate on max your lucky if it stays at 30. Dont know if you argued about this with me( cant rememeber). but this is just an example of what im talking about. Lots of hermits assume a game runs a certain way on a GPU without even playing it and that really annoys me. horrowhip

I exaggerated earlier saying that it got 60 FPS, but it gets over 30 FPS on high easily. Oh and FYI the console version of Bioshock runs at 30 FPS...

here are Gamespots Benchmarks.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6177688/index.html

AMD Athlon 64 FX-60, Radeon X1900 XT 256MB, 1GB RAM, Windows XP

37 FPS

The x1900xt is ATi's equivilant of the 7800. The system only had1 GB of RAM, also... And what setting was it on??? Highest settings with 1600*1200 resolution. Want to know what the 360's resolution was? 720p. I guess the 7800 can run Bioshock better than the 360 can.

Now you want to trolling polaris?

ahh silly noob doesnt know how to read benchmarks nore do you know how to make an argument. First of all the x1900 is more powerful then the 7800gtx. Second of all it maxes out at 37fps it does not average at 30fps the 360 stays at 30fps and never drops while the x1900 has dips below 30. Once again you have set yourself up for self ownage . Also dont backtrack on the fact that you said it ran at 60fps it wasnt untill you posted benchmarks from GS showing a more powerful video card running it at half of what you said the 7800gtx ran it at. Case in point im right yet again a x1900 doesnt even run the game at a steady frame rate so how in the hell would a 7800gtx lmao?

the x1900 xt is only as good as the 7800... The x1950xt is as good as the 7900. the 7950 is the best DX9 card out there. And who cares if it dips below 30 sometimes... the 360 version does it too. Averaging 37 FPS at 1600*1200 resolution is much, MUCH better than the 360 can say.

Actually the X1900 beat the 7800 on almost every benchmark regardless the 360 has no dips that I have noticed while both the x1900 and 7900 will go well below 30fps. Its not a huge deal its playable but the fact is the 360 is running the game better then most DX9 cards. Which brings me back to my orginal point. If making a game for a console holds it back visually then that would mean that game would have to be unplayable on DX9 cards as well . Its a simple fact making a game for a console does not hold it back anymore then any multiplatform title would.

Since theres no xbox360 or ps3 version to develop for theres no chance of either of these games being dumbed down graphically or gameplay wise. Look at what happened with Bioshock, even though it looks great the textures are extremely low res up close and the character models are blocky. Modern PCs are capable of far more but it was held back by the 360 version.

Thank God Ubi and Crytek have made the right choices here to not have to water down their games.

turq_razor

didnt the gamespot comparison prove that the verisons are very similiar, even on a high-spec PC?

and i would have thought it being on console would have improved the presentation and the gameplay too since console's are known for these

Actually the X1900 beat the 7800 on almost every benchmark regardless the 360 has no dips that I have noticed while both the x1900 and 7900 will go well below 30fps. Its not a huge deal its playable but the fact is the 360 is running the game better then most DX9 cards. Which brings me back to my orginal point. If making a game for a console holds it back visually then that would mean that game would have to be unplayable on DX9 cards as well . Its a simple fact making a game for a console does not hold it back anymore then any multiplatform title would. Polaris_choice

Thing is, the 7800 and x1900xt are direct competitors as they were meant to be see the chart here.

The 7800 GTX is fundamentally different from the x1900xt but they are competitors and their benchmarks tend to be fairly close.

Anyway, yes, the PC version can drop below 30 FPS thats just the nature of PC games, butmost of the times itstays well over 30 FPS, thus averaging it out.If you were to lock the 7800 GTX at 30 FPS I would imagine it would be just as smooth as the 360 runs. It also runs on High which looks slightly(although barely noticeable when playing) better than the 360, and at a higher resolution. If you were to bump the resolution down to 1024*768 which is the PC equivilant of 720p, your framerates would probably jump to around 60 FPS on the highest settings. I'm just saying...

[QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Coming from a PC/PS3 gamer - who cares? It's not like the consoles are limiting development here. Any piece of hardware that has games as impressive as PGR4, GT5, MGS4, Halo 3, Killzone 2 Unreal Tournament 3 etc etc - well, we won't have to worry about the consoles "limiting" gameplay for awhile :).

Sure, Crysis looks awesome - and I'll be playing it on my PC, but it still doesn't make the top-tier games like UT3 look bad. Actually, in certain ways I'd consider UT3 to be just as impressive.

AdrianWerner

Actualy we do. Gameplay will always be limited because of consoles. Simply put there's no way consoles can handle the speed of FPS gaming that PC can. That's why all those multiplatform FPSes when played on PC seem very slow. And yeah...all those games are impressive, but Pc can do more. Especialy texture-wise.

Considering that the PS3 features full KB+M support on UT3 you have no case whatsoever and since the textures in UT3 for the PS3 will look better then most pc's running it I really dont see your point.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]Actually the X1900 beat the 7800 on almost every benchmark regardless the 360 has no dips that I have noticed while both the x1900 and 7900 will go well below 30fps. Its not a huge deal its playable but the fact is the 360 is running the game better then most DX9 cards. Which brings me back to my orginal point. If making a game for a console holds it back visually then that would mean that game would have to be unplayable on DX9 cards as well . Its a simple fact making a game for a console does not hold it back anymore then any multiplatform title would. horrowhip

Thing is, the 7800 and x1900xt are direct competitors as they were meant to be see the chart here.

The 7800 GTX is fundamentally different from the x1900xt but they are competitors and their benchmarks tend to be fairly close.

Anyway, yes, the PC version can drop below 30 FPS thats just the nature of PC games, butmost of the times itstays well over 30 FPS, thus averaging it out.If you were to lock the 7800 GTX at 30 FPS I would imagine it would be just as smooth as the 360 runs. It also runs on High which looks slightly(although barely noticeable when playing) better than the 360, and at a higher resolution. If you were to bump the resolution down to 1024*768 which is the PC equivilant of 720p, your framerates would probably jump to around 60 FPS on the highest settings. I'm just saying...

The PC version on DX9 looks identical on high sorry thats a fact. Thats all the 360 version is at DX9 highest quality settings. Also no a 7800gtx will never run Bioshock at 60fps . Res makes a differnce but 720 isnt going to add an extra 30fps sorry just doesnt happen.Overall the 360 version runs smoother then a 7800gtx regardless this brings me back to my orignal point. If consoles cripple pc development then that means thegames could notbe scaled down to a7800,7900 series of cards which would isolate about 99% of the pc market. This is my whole point of the argument.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Coming from a PC/PS3 gamer - who cares? It's not like the consoles are limiting development here. Any piece of hardware that has games as impressive as PGR4, GT5, MGS4, Halo 3, Killzone 2 Unreal Tournament 3 etc etc - well, we won't have to worry about the consoles "limiting" gameplay for awhile :).

Sure, Crysis looks awesome - and I'll be playing it on my PC, but it still doesn't make the top-tier games like UT3 look bad. Actually, in certain ways I'd consider UT3 to be just as impressive.

Polaris_choice

Actualy we do. Gameplay will always be limited because of consoles. Simply put there's no way consoles can handle the speed of FPS gaming that PC can. That's why all those multiplatform FPSes when played on PC seem very slow. And yeah...all those games are impressive, but Pc can do more. Especialy texture-wise.

Considering that the PS3 features full KB+M support on UT3 you have no case whatsoever and since the textures in UT3 for the PS3 will look better then most pc's running it I really dont see your point.

the textures for the PS3 version won't be better though... the PS3 uses a slightly modified 7800 GTX as its GPU. According to this chart, 13 million PC owners have cards of that caliber or higher.

The 7800 GTX and x1900xt are just withing the $150-250 range. Considering the average price within that range is $245 that means 90% of the cards are in the upper levels of that range. Meaning, a lot of people have 7900 GT's or betterin the PC's. I'm not saying that consoles are holding back PC's, I'm just saying you can't say that consoles are better than the average gaming PC(which according to this chart equates to 14 million people's PC's.)

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]Actually the X1900 beat the 7800 on almost every benchmark regardless the 360 has no dips that I have noticed while both the x1900 and 7900 will go well below 30fps. Its not a huge deal its playable but the fact is the 360 is running the game better then most DX9 cards. Which brings me back to my orginal point. If making a game for a console holds it back visually then that would mean that game would have to be unplayable on DX9 cards as well . Its a simple fact making a game for a console does not hold it back anymore then any multiplatform title would. Polaris_choice

Thing is, the 7800 and x1900xt are direct competitors as they were meant to be see the chart here.

The 7800 GTX is fundamentally different from the x1900xt but they are competitors and their benchmarks tend to be fairly close.

Anyway, yes, the PC version can drop below 30 FPS thats just the nature of PC games, butmost of the times itstays well over 30 FPS, thus averaging it out.If you were to lock the 7800 GTX at 30 FPS I would imagine it would be just as smooth as the 360 runs. It also runs on High which looks slightly(although barely noticeable when playing) better than the 360, and at a higher resolution. If you were to bump the resolution down to 1024*768 which is the PC equivilant of 720p, your framerates would probably jump to around 60 FPS on the highest settings. I'm just saying...

The PC version on DX9 looks identical on high sorry thats a fact. Thats all the 360 version is at DX9 highest quality settings. Also no a 7800gtx will never run Bioshock at 60fps . Res makes a differnce but 720 isnt going to add an extra 30fps sorry just doesnt happen.Overall the 360 version runs smoother then a 7800gtx regardless this brings me back to my orignal point. If consoles cripple pc development then that means thegames could notbe scaled down to a7800,7900 series of cards which would isolate about 99% of the pc market. This is my whole point of the argument.

going from 1600*1200 to 1024*768 makes a HUGE difference in framerate. Maybe not 30FPS, but definitely 20FPS. And, I never made the arguement that the consoles are hold back PC games, but you saying a 7800 GTX can't run the game on the highest settings smoothly is preposterous. You understand where I am coming from now?

I heard they were recruiting ps3 game devs to put crysis on the ps3.

ty bye bye.

I heard they were recruiting ps3 game devs to put crysis on the ps3.

ty bye bye.

L_G_X

and that was an incorrect rumor. They were hiring PS3 devs to port CryENGINE 2 to the PS3. That doesn't mean it will look the same as the Ultra-High DX10, but probably it will get High DX9 level graphics. Not that bad if you ask me...

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Coming from a PC/PS3 gamer - who cares? It's not like the consoles are limiting development here. Any piece of hardware that has games as impressive as PGR4, GT5, MGS4, Halo 3, Killzone 2 Unreal Tournament 3 etc etc - well, we won't have to worry about the consoles "limiting" gameplay for awhile :).

Sure, Crysis looks awesome - and I'll be playing it on my PC, but it still doesn't make the top-tier games like UT3 look bad. Actually, in certain ways I'd consider UT3 to be just as impressive.

Polaris_choice

Actualy we do. Gameplay will always be limited because of consoles. Simply put there's no way consoles can handle the speed of FPS gaming that PC can. That's why all those multiplatform FPSes when played on PC seem very slow. And yeah...all those games are impressive, but Pc can do more. Especialy texture-wise.

Considering that the PS3 features full KB+M support on UT3 you have no case whatsoever and since the textures in UT3 for the PS3 will look better then most pc's running it I really dont see your point.

ZZzzzzz the tired "but teh casual pc gamers" rubbish .. we dont care about them, the point is the PC has the potential to be much better for those that actually care.

I played UT2004 on low for the first time ever ... didnt hinder my enjoyment.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Sonic_on_crack"]

What was the last exlcusive game Ubisoft made. Actually can you even use Ubisoft and Exlcusive in the same sentence ?

just like FEAR, Far Cry, and HL2 I expect both of these games to be on 360 or ps3 by next winter . I personally cant wait for Crysis

Zeliard9

Crysis is being made by Crytek, so you may be in for quite a long (if not indefinite) wait.

And I think Crytek wasn't too happy with Ubisoft's console ports. Probably why they just gave them the Far Cry name to work with (FC2 is looking extremely cool, btw). So I don't think we'd see Crysis on consoles unless Crytek worked on doing the ports themselves, and I don't think they'd bother with that when they can just be working on their next big project instead.

the ONLY console that could possibly see Crysis is the 360 seeing how the job it would take would be very minimal. The PC and 360 can both be programed for in tandum, unlike the PS3 that has a completely different infrastructure.

[QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Coming from a PC/PS3 gamer - who cares? It's not like the consoles are limiting development here. Any piece of hardware that has games as impressive as PGR4, GT5, MGS4, Halo 3, Killzone 2 Unreal Tournament 3 etc etc - well, we won't have to worry about the consoles "limiting" gameplay for awhile :).

Sure, Crysis looks awesome - and I'll be playing it on my PC, but it still doesn't make the top-tier games like UT3 look bad. Actually, in certain ways I'd consider UT3 to be just as impressive.

AdrianWerner

Actualy we do. Gameplay will always be limited because of consoles. Simply put there's no way consoles can handle the speed of FPS gaming that PC can. That's why all those multiplatform FPSes when played on PC seem very slow. And yeah...all those games are impressive, but Pc can do more. Especialy texture-wise.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Coming from a PC/PS3 gamer - who cares? It's not like the consoles are limiting development here. Any piece of hardware that has games as impressive as PGR4, GT5, MGS4, Halo 3, Killzone 2 Unreal Tournament 3 etc etc - well, we won't have to worry about the consoles "limiting" gameplay for awhile :).

Sure, Crysis looks awesome - and I'll be playing it on my PC, but it still doesn't make the top-tier games like UT3 look bad. Actually, in certain ways I'd consider UT3 to be just as impressive.

Nedemis

Actualy we do. Gameplay will always be limited because of consoles. Simply put there's no way consoles can handle the speed of FPS gaming that PC can. That's why all those multiplatform FPSes when played on PC seem very slow. And yeah...all those games are impressive, but Pc can do more. Especialy texture-wise.

is that why CoD2 for the PC suffered from serious framerate issues, yet the 360 version clipped along at 60fps without a hitch? BTW....I'd really love to see how a game would look on the PC if you didn't have to install 5+GB worth of data on it....

You want to throw the optmization card in our faces? Need I remind you that Half-Life 2 Orange box is only running at 30 FPS on the 360/PS3? a 2004 game with some graphic improvments? thats epic phail right there.

I'l have my Orange Box at 175 FPS thank you.... at 1050 DP 16 X FSAAA 16 X FXAAA and so forth.

wow, i leave for just a second and the topic skips off without me....

"runs after topic into the distance"

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Coming from a PC/PS3 gamer - who cares? It's not like the consoles are limiting development here. Any piece of hardware that has games as impressive as PGR4, GT5, MGS4, Halo 3, Killzone 2 Unreal Tournament 3 etc etc - well, we won't have to worry about the consoles "limiting" gameplay for awhile :).

Sure, Crysis looks awesome - and I'll be playing it on my PC, but it still doesn't make the top-tier games like UT3 look bad. Actually, in certain ways I'd consider UT3 to be just as impressive.

Meu2k7

Actualy we do. Gameplay will always be limited because of consoles. Simply put there's no way consoles can handle the speed of FPS gaming that PC can. That's why all those multiplatform FPSes when played on PC seem very slow. And yeah...all those games are impressive, but Pc can do more. Especialy texture-wise.

Considering that the PS3 features full KB+M support on UT3 you have no case whatsoever and since the textures in UT3 for the PS3 will look better then most pc's running it I really dont see your point.

ZZzzzzz the tired "but teh casual pc gamers" rubbish .. we dont care about them, the point is the PC has the potential to be much better for those that actually care.

I played UT2004 on low for the first time ever ... didnt hinder my enjoyment.

But thats just it the PS3 isnt like playing UT3 on low according to MR its equivelent to playting UT3 on high settings. Granted if you have a greatpc you will run smoother framerates and higher res but still the PS3 version isnt being dubbed down for anyone.

But thats just it the PS3 isnt like playing UT3 on low according to MR its equivelent to playting UT3 on high settings. Granted if you have a greatpc you will run smoother framerates and higher res but still the PS3 version isnt being dubbed down for anyone. Polaris_choice

[QUOTE="Nedemis"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Coming from a PC/PS3 gamer - who cares? It's not like the consoles are limiting development here. Any piece of hardware that has games as impressive as PGR4, GT5, MGS4, Halo 3, Killzone 2 Unreal Tournament 3 etc etc - well, we won't have to worry about the consoles "limiting" gameplay for awhile :).

Sure, Crysis looks awesome - and I'll be playing it on my PC, but it still doesn't make the top-tier games like UT3 look bad. Actually, in certain ways I'd consider UT3 to be just as impressive.

Meu2k7

Actualy we do. Gameplay will always be limited because of consoles. Simply put there's no way consoles can handle the speed of FPS gaming that PC can. That's why all those multiplatform FPSes when played on PC seem very slow. And yeah...all those games are impressive, but Pc can do more. Especialy texture-wise.

is that why CoD2 for the PC suffered from serious framerate issues, yet the 360 version clipped along at 60fps without a hitch? BTW....I'd really love to see how a game would look on the PC if you didn't have to install 5+GB worth of data on it....

You want to throw the optmization card in our faces? Need I remind you that Half-Life 2 Orange box is only running at 30 FPS on the 360/PS3? a 2004 game with some graphic improvments? thats epic phail right there.

I'l have my Orange Box at 175 FPS thank you.... at 1050 DP 16 X FSAAA 16 X FXAAA and so forth.

I thought HL2 was suppsoe to run at 60fps last i heard. And 175fps ? Um no TV can even refresh that fast so that would be an absolute waste of power. And not to mention the Orange Box looks a hell of alot better then the version that came out in 2004. It even features softshadows on the console version which can kick the crap out of any pc card .

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]But thats just it the PS3 isnt like playing UT3 on low according to MR its equivelent to playting UT3 on high settings. Granted if you have a greatpc you will run smoother framerates and higher res but still the PS3 version isnt being dubbed down for anyone. Vandalvideo

As of right now the PS3 version looks identical to a high end rig as all previwers have said that is a simple fact and that is all there is to it.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]But thats just it the PS3 isnt like playing UT3 on low according to MR its equivelent to playting UT3 on high settings. Granted if you have a greatpc you will run smoother framerates and higher res but still the PS3 version isnt being dubbed down for anyone. Polaris_choice

As of right now the PS3 version looks identical to a high end rig as all previwers have said that is a simple fact and that is all there is to it.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]Actually the X1900 beat the 7800 on almost every benchmark regardless the 360 has no dips that I have noticed while both the x1900 and 7900 will go well below 30fps. Its not a huge deal its playable but the fact is the 360 is running the game better then most DX9 cards. Which brings me back to my orginal point. If making a game for a console holds it back visually then that would mean that game would have to be unplayable on DX9 cards as well . Its a simple fact making a game for a console does not hold it back anymore then any multiplatform title would. horrowhip

Thing is, the 7800 and x1900xt are direct competitors as they were meant to be see the chart here.

The 7800 GTX is fundamentally different from the x1900xt but they are competitors and their benchmarks tend to be fairly close.

Anyway, yes, the PC version can drop below 30 FPS thats just the nature of PC games, butmost of the times itstays well over 30 FPS, thus averaging it out.If you were to lock the 7800 GTX at 30 FPS I would imagine it would be just as smooth as the 360 runs. It also runs on High which looks slightly(although barely noticeable when playing) better than the 360, and at a higher resolution. If you were to bump the resolution down to 1024*768 which is the PC equivilant of 720p, your framerates would probably jump to around 60 FPS on the highest settings. I'm just saying...

The PC version on DX9 looks identical on high sorry thats a fact. Thats all the 360 version is at DX9 highest quality settings. Also no a 7800gtx will never run Bioshock at 60fps . Res makes a differnce but 720 isnt going to add an extra 30fps sorry just doesnt happen.Overall the 360 version runs smoother then a 7800gtx regardless this brings me back to my orignal point. If consoles cripple pc development then that means thegames could notbe scaled down to a7800,7900 series of cards which would isolate about 99% of the pc market. This is my whole point of the argument.

going from 1600*1200 to 1024*768 makes a HUGE difference in framerate. Maybe not 30FPS, but definitely 20FPS. And, I never made the arguement that the consoles are hold back PC games, but you saying a 7800 GTX can't run the game on the highest settings smoothly is preposterous. You understand where I am coming from now?

Im not saying a 7800 cant run it smoothy im saying it doesnt run it as consistent as the 360 version does and thats based off personal experinnce. Regardless the whole point of this thread is to say consoels are holding back pc development and as far as pc ports go consoles are equivlent to high end DX9 rigs so thats simply false as we both know. Regardless in the case of the PS3 the exclusives look so much better then the pc ports so I hope to seemore of those.

Im not saying a 7800 cant run it smoothy im saying it doesnt run it as consistent as the 360 version does and thats based off personal experinnce. Regardless the whole point of this thread is to say consoels are holding back pc development and as far as pc ports go consoles are equivlent to high end DX9 rigs so thats simply false as we both know. Regardless in the case of the PS3 the exclusives look so much better then the pc ports so I hope to seemore of those. Polaris_choice

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="Nedemis"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Coming from a PC/PS3 gamer - who cares? It's not like the consoles are limiting development here. Any piece of hardware that has games as impressive as PGR4, GT5, MGS4, Halo 3, Killzone 2 Unreal Tournament 3 etc etc - well, we won't have to worry about the consoles "limiting" gameplay for awhile :).

Sure, Crysis looks awesome - and I'll be playing it on my PC, but it still doesn't make the top-tier games like UT3 look bad. Actually, in certain ways I'd consider UT3 to be just as impressive.

Polaris_choice

Actualy we do. Gameplay will always be limited because of consoles. Simply put there's no way consoles can handle the speed of FPS gaming that PC can. That's why all those multiplatform FPSes when played on PC seem very slow. And yeah...all those games are impressive, but Pc can do more. Especialy texture-wise.

is that why CoD2 for the PC suffered from serious framerate issues, yet the 360 version clipped along at 60fps without a hitch? BTW....I'd really love to see how a game would look on the PC if you didn't have to install 5+GB worth of data on it....

You want to throw the optmization card in our faces? Need I remind you that Half-Life 2 Orange box is only running at 30 FPS on the 360/PS3? a 2004 game with some graphic improvments? thats epic phail right there.

I'l have my Orange Box at 175 FPS thank you.... at 1050 DP 16 X FSAAA 16 X FXAAA and so forth.

I thought HL2 was suppsoe to run at 60fps last i heard. And 175fps ? Um no TV can even refresh that fast so that would be an absolute waste of power. And not to mention the Orange Box looks a hell of alot better then the version that came out in 2004. It even features softshadows on the console version which can kick the crap out of any pc card .

No its 30 FPS , and Soft Shadows are going to be in the Orang eBox version for the PC aswell ... unless Soft Shadows magically eats away 115 of my FPS ... I doubt I will be seeing any problems.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]But thats just it the PS3 isnt like playing UT3 on low according to MR its equivelent to playting UT3 on high settings. Granted if you have a greatpc you will run smoother framerates and higher res but still the PS3 version isnt being dubbed down for anyone. Vandalvideo

As of right now the PS3 version looks identical to a high end rig as all previwers have said that is a simple fact and that is all there is to it.

No its not Direct x 9 or even 8 complaint because it uses Open GL. So whatever effects they want to emulate thats up to them. Im simply going by the latest previews that the PS3 looks like a high end rig running it. Whatever DX10 features that will be put in UT3 I dont know .

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="Nedemis"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Coming from a PC/PS3 gamer - who cares? It's not like the consoles are limiting development here. Any piece of hardware that has games as impressive as PGR4, GT5, MGS4, Halo 3, Killzone 2 Unreal Tournament 3 etc etc - well, we won't have to worry about the consoles "limiting" gameplay for awhile :).

Sure, Crysis looks awesome - and I'll be playing it on my PC, but it still doesn't make the top-tier games like UT3 look bad. Actually, in certain ways I'd consider UT3 to be just as impressive.

Meu2k7

Actualy we do. Gameplay will always be limited because of consoles. Simply put there's no way consoles can handle the speed of FPS gaming that PC can. That's why all those multiplatform FPSes when played on PC seem very slow. And yeah...all those games are impressive, but Pc can do more. Especialy texture-wise.

is that why CoD2 for the PC suffered from serious framerate issues, yet the 360 version clipped along at 60fps without a hitch? BTW....I'd really love to see how a game would look on the PC if you didn't have to install 5+GB worth of data on it....

You want to throw the optmization card in our faces? Need I remind you that Half-Life 2 Orange box is only running at 30 FPS on the 360/PS3? a 2004 game with some graphic improvments? thats epic phail right there.

I'l have my Orange Box at 175 FPS thank you.... at 1050 DP 16 X FSAAA 16 X FXAAA and so forth.

I thought HL2 was suppsoe to run at 60fps last i heard. And 175fps ? Um no TV can even refresh that fast so that would be an absolute waste of power. And not to mention the Orange Box looks a hell of alot better then the version that came out in 2004. It even features softshadows on the console version which can kick the crap out of any pc card .

No its 30 FPS , and Soft Shadows are going to be in the Orang eBox version for the PC aswell ... unless Soft Shadows magically eats away 115 of my FPS ... I doubt I will be seeing any problems.

Wow I was hoping for a better pc port if thats true. Consdering COD4 stomps HL2 visually and is confirmed to be running at 60. I expected better from valve.

No its not Direct x 9 or even 8 complaint because it uses Open GL. So whatever effects they want to emulate thats up to them. Im simply going by the latest previews that the PS3 looks like a high end rig running it. Whatever DX10 features that will be put in UT3 I dont know . Polaris_choice

Why does Gears look better than any PC game currently out there? Was the 360's GPU holding it back? I'm a PC gamer and even I think your Bioshock comparison sounds ridiculous.

Crysis and Far Cry are a different story though, they have to run on PC, there's no way anything else could handle it. They're using Crysis to push DX10 and DX10 cards, of course it's going to be a system workout.

I'm glad MGS 4, Killzone 2, Final Fantasy 13, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Uncharted, God of War 3 etc etc etc are going to be console exclusives so we won't have to worry about PC snobs like you getting their greasy hands on 'em. :)

big mistake to use COD2 as a way to put such a point across bud. COD2 was released on 360 a year later. What do you think they were doing in that year? Playing chess? And i have no issues with COD2 frame-rates thank you very much, my 7900 works just fine with everything maxed.mdcw9

you should really get your facts straight for once....there wasn't even 1 month between the PC and 360 release.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]No its not Direct x 9 or even 8 complaint because it uses Open GL. So whatever effects they want to emulate thats up to them. Im simply going by the latest previews that the PS3 looks like a high end rig running it. Whatever DX10 features that will be put in UT3 I dont know . Vandalvideo

Well will see as of right now in Dx9 mode it doesnt look any better and the devs can emulate whatever it wants . Regardless the PS3 version isnt dubbed down for anyone. It featres great visuals, KB+M support and even mod support. The whole argument of this thread was that developing a game for consoels hold it back and the fact is that simply isnt true.

I personally think COD4 looks kinda bad, to be honest. The framerate is nice and smooth, but it's obvious they did it at the expense of nice textures and realistic polygon models. Don't get me wrong, it's high on my list of games to buy, but 60 FPS isn't a big deal. R:FOM runs at 30 and you'd never know it. As long as it's a smooth 30, and in the case of KZ2, uses motion blur nicely, 60 FPS is meaningless. I'd take a gorgeous 30 FPS game over a mediocre 60 FPS anyday.

"Stomps HL2 visually?" :lol: Not a chance.

HL2 has been out for 3 years and it's still one of the best-looking games you can buy. I know Gamespot wet its underwear at the sight of COD4, but I watched the same hi-def trailer they did and I didn't see anything remarkable there except the framerate and the amount of stuff going on. The actual art S T Y L E is boring and the textures aren't anything special.

For the hundredth time, WTF IS OFFENSIVE ABOUT THE WORD S T Y L E? This site is a joke, wow.

Well will see as of right now in Dx9 mode it doesnt look any better and the devs can emulate whatever it wants . Regardless the PS3 version isnt dubbed down for anyone. It featres great visuals, KB+M support and even mod support. The whole argument of this thread was that developing a game for consoels hold it back and the fact is that simply isnt true. Polaris_choice

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="Nedemis"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="Primevil702"]

Coming from a PC/PS3 gamer - who cares? It's not like the consoles are limiting development here. Any piece of hardware that has games as impressive as PGR4, GT5, MGS4, Halo 3, Killzone 2 Unreal Tournament 3 etc etc - well, we won't have to worry about the consoles "limiting" gameplay for awhile :).

Sure, Crysis looks awesome - and I'll be playing it on my PC, but it still doesn't make the top-tier games like UT3 look bad. Actually, in certain ways I'd consider UT3 to be just as impressive.

Meu2k7

Actualy we do. Gameplay will always be limited because of consoles. Simply put there's no way consoles can handle the speed of FPS gaming that PC can. That's why all those multiplatform FPSes when played on PC seem very slow. And yeah...all those games are impressive, but Pc can do more. Especialy texture-wise.

is that why CoD2 for the PC suffered from serious framerate issues, yet the 360 version clipped along at 60fps without a hitch? BTW....I'd really love to see how a game would look on the PC if you didn't have to install 5+GB worth of data on it....

You want to throw the optmization card in our faces? Need I remind you that Half-Life 2 Orange box is only running at 30 FPS on the 360/PS3? a 2004 game with some graphic improvments? thats epic phail right there.

I'l have my Orange Box at 175 FPS thank you.... at 1050 DP 16 X FSAAA 16 X FXAAA and so forth.

I thought HL2 was suppsoe to run at 60fps last i heard. And 175fps ? Um no TV can even refresh that fast so that would be an absolute waste of power. And not to mention the Orange Box looks a hell of alot better then the version that came out in 2004. It even features softshadows on the console version which can kick the crap out of any pc card .

No its 30 FPS , and Soft Shadows are going to be in the Orang eBox version for the PC aswell ... unless Soft Shadows magically eats away 115 of my FPS ... I doubt I will be seeing any problems.

wow....once again, a PC fanboy who doesn't know the facts about the console version of a game...:lol:

just in case you don't feel like clicking the link, here's a quote from it...

"Speaking of frame rates, the first thing the Valve representative told me when I mentioned that I played the Xbox version of the game was that the Xbox 360 title would be locked-in at 60 frames per second, even during the most intense firefights. While that wasn't the case when I was checking it out, he explained that the game was only running on one of the Xbox 360's cores at the time, and even then it was running fairly smoothly. He also mentioned that the collision calculations in the game were four times faster than in the previous version of the game, meaning everything would react more realistically when hit."

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]Well will see as of right now in Dx9 mode it doesnt look any better and the devs can emulate whatever it wants . Regardless the PS3 version isnt dubbed down for anyone. It featres great visuals, KB+M support and even mod support. The whole argument of this thread was that developing a game for consoels hold it back and the fact is that simply isnt true. Vandalvideo

Open GL 2.1 (only available on the PC... the PS3 has Open GL, not even Open GL 2.0) is actually quite comparable to DX10. It is however, completely different from DX10 in terms of how it renders scenes. Polaris, the PS3 can't do the DX10 effects. It CAN do High DX9 effects though. Ultra-high, well maybe... but maybe not.

wow....once again, a PC fanboy who doesn't know the facts about the console version of a game...:lol:

just in case you don't feel like clicking the link, here's a quote from it...

"Speaking of frame rates, the first thing the Valve representative told me when I mentioned that I played the Xbox version of the game was that the Xbox 360 title would be locked-in at 60 frames per second, even during the most intense firefights. While that wasn't the case when I was checking it out, he explained that the game was only running on one of the Xbox 360's cores at the time, and even then it was running fairly smoothly. He also mentioned that the collision calculations in the game were four times faster than in the previous version of the game, meaning everything would react more realistically when hit."

Nedemis

Thanks for the quote but I just need to point out the PC version of the Source engine will also be getting these updates. I knew that the Source engine had gotten a complete overhaul when I saw gameplay of HL2: Episode 2. It looked great quite honestly.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]Well will see as of right now in Dx9 mode it doesnt look any better and the devs can emulate whatever it wants . Regardless the PS3 version isnt dubbed down for anyone. It featres great visuals, KB+M support and even mod support. The whole argument of this thread was that developing a game for consoels hold it back and the fact is that simply isnt true. Vandalvideo

The thing is you dont know a dam thing about programming and DX10 is simply a API that has nothing to do with Open GL. Open Gl is a much more wide open API and is great for emulation. Regardless most DX10 effects shown so far in games have done very little to enhance the experiene even visually. So we dont even know what UT3 will be doing as far as DX10 goes. As for the PS3 not being able to handle the mods. Um it will be able to handle pretty much any mod made for it by the time its released if not then I would say most pc gamers are screwed.

[QUOTE="Nedemis"]wow....once again, a PC fanboy who doesn't know the facts about the console version of a game...:lol:

just in case you don't feel like clicking the link, here's a quote from it...

"Speaking of frame rates, the first thing the Valve representative told me when I mentioned that I played the Xbox version of the game was that the Xbox 360 title would be locked-in at 60 frames per second, even during the most intense firefights. While that wasn't the case when I was checking it out, he explained that the game was only running on one of the Xbox 360's cores at the time, and even then it was running fairly smoothly. He also mentioned that the collision calculations in the game were four times faster than in the previous version of the game, meaning everything would react more realistically when hit."

horrowhip

Thanks for the quote but I just need to point out the PC version of the Source engine will also be getting these updates. I knew that the Source engine had gotten a complete overhaul when I saw gameplay of HL2: Episode 2. It looked great quite honestly.

I knew I read HL2 was running at 60fps on consoles. Ownage approved.

eh??

and they coulnd just add things the consoles couldnt do ???

like what bioshock has over its console versions!

its probably not as good as other games on the pc in certain areas so it runs on lower end systems better so more people can enjoy it...

[QUOTE="Nedemis"]wow....once again, a PC fanboy who doesn't know the facts about the console version of a game...:lol:

just in case you don't feel like clicking the link, here's a quote from it...

"Speaking of frame rates, the first thing the Valve representative told me when I mentioned that I played the Xbox version of the game was that the Xbox 360 title would be locked-in at 60 frames per second, even during the most intense firefights. While that wasn't the case when I was checking it out, he explained that the game was only running on one of the Xbox 360's cores at the time, and even then it was running fairly smoothly. He also mentioned that the collision calculations in the game were four times faster than in the previous version of the game, meaning everything would react more realistically when hit."

horrowhip

Thanks for the quote but I just need to point out the PC version of the Source engine will also be getting these updates. I knew that the Source engine had gotten a complete overhaul when I saw gameplay of HL2: Episode 2. It looked great quite honestly.

I know that the PC version will have the updates as well, I just wanted to make sure I put that in there so the illinformed couldn't say otherwise. Usually hermits know what they're talking about, but that's not the case this time. Two hermits wrong with in the period of 1 page of posts....:lol: unheard of....

The thing is you dont know a dam thing about programming and DX10 is simply a API that has nothing to do with Open GL. Open Gl is a much more wide open API and is great for emulation. Regardless most DX10 effects shown so far in games have done very little to enhance the experiene even visually. So we dont even know what UT3 will be doing as far as DX10 goes. As for the PS3 not being able to handle the mods. Um it will be able to handle pretty much any mod made for it by the time its released if not then I would say most pc gamers are screwed. Polaris_choice