Not to me. I've had so much fun with my 360 that I can only say it has been more than worth every penny I've paid for it.IronBassGot any evidence to back that up? How much have you spent in total on your Xbox 360 gaming experience, and how many hours of gameplay have you had from it?
CentricStorm's forum posts
My argument is that upscaling a low res (geometry) game will still look low res and still have jaggies unless it's cleaned up using some form of AA....in which the final product will still be somewhat blurry.ryetechAll I created this thread for was to show that console-level graphics can be achieved on PC for the same cheap price by using the same 'optimisation' methods that consoles use to illiminate the need for an expensive graphics card, mainly rendering games at low resolution and upscaling. 2xAA will cause no performance drop on any modern graphics cards, including the budget less-than-$100 9800GT mentioned earlier. Of course an upscaled image will never look as good as a natively-rendered image, this thread was not intended to claim otherwise.
pc + ps3 its pretty obvious.SamiRDuranThis is the exact type of presumptuous comment I was trying to argue against in my Xbox 360 16:10 resolution support thread before it got flamed down. I own a PC, so statistically I am far more likely to own a 16:10 screen - a recent survey conducted by Steam found that the most common resolutions used by their forum members were 1280x1024 and 1680x1050, standing out by a significant margin compared to other resolutions (such as 720p). The PS3 does not support 1680x1050 at all. The Xbox 360 supports upscaled 1680x1050 perfectly. So assuming that 'PS3 is the only logical choice for PC owners' like someone else stated is just wrong. In some cases it will be true, but in a large number of them it won't.
Log in to comment