[QUOTE="Mstrchiefpwns"]This is going to upset a lot of PC gamers.Meu2k7

Not really, his ignorance is funny.

Someone should remind me what reason is there to me to game on my 360 too. :)

System Shock 2.

I've recently replayed it just because Bioshock is coming out soon and everything, I found out that I still have to force myself to peek through thaaat door at the end of the hallway, from the other side of which weird noises could be heard just a minute ago. Considering that it's my third playthrough too.

[QUOTE="Core0"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Core0"]

Lost Planet you say?
Screenshot from the 8800GTS

VS The screenshot from the 360


Runs at a stable 30FPS with momentary dips to 20-24 FPS in big explosions. Note that the PC screenshot is a highly compressed jpeg too.
I think the discussion is over here.

And that's considering that LP's engine was made for the 360 and the 360 only.

For god's sake, even Gears of War, which has been fully optimized to take advantage of the 360's every last bit of power, ran at E3 at 1920x1200(!)x60FPS with higher detail levels on 8800GTS/C2D/2GB RAM PCs. As opposed to the 360's 1280x720x30FPS

Polaris_choice

You think Gears of War uses all the 360's power? Um I can name 3 games coming out this year coming to the 360 that blow Gears of War out of the water? And that pic of LP looks no better on pc an has extremly sporatic framerates.

Ps. when you click on your pick it gives spam please dont do that.

And, no, the Lost Planet PC screenshot looks far better. Check out the textures, the jaggies, or the lack of thereof, the particles that don't look like a mess of pixels, the sheer 1:1 size of the image. And, again, framerates? Those framerates are higher than what you get on the 360! Stop talking nonsense.

Also, spam? What are you talking about, it's Imageshack?

Oh, and finally, no, there are no games this year that "blow it out of the water". Mass Effect looks worse in action than I thought it would, not to mention the horrible lack of antialiasing. Bioshock is crossplatform, and, it isn't a title that was built to be a visual showcase either.

Cliffy B said Gears of War was the tip of the iceberg for the 360. Sorry no it doesnt use the power and you think Geow looks better then Mass Effect? Um that is laughable, Mass Effect, COD4 and Too Human all clearly look better then Gears of War sorry and every preveiw under the sun has made a special point to say COD4 is better looking then Gears of War and will be the new showcase of the visuals for the 360.

The PC screenshot looks far better? Um seriously lets read all the reviews where they say the visual differnce is minimal at best and btw ive played it and your screenshot further proves my point so you have no case. Its also important to notice the 360 framerate stays steady while the pc framerate varies from mid 40's to low 60's .

"as for the spam I got a pop up add for a Recipe book and some other random crap"

CoD4, you say? Do you realize that the lead SKU for CoD4 is the PC version? It won't look any better than GoW did. Just go look at the screenshot galleries. Mass Effect is full of horrible jaggies and generally it doesn't have anything remarkable besides the characters with their realistic facial animations and everything. And Too Human? Are you serious?

What's more is that Mass Effect and Too Human both use nigh-unmodified UE3.0 engine, the same one GoW used.

The PC screenshot does look better. Why do you refer to reviews at the point where I actually have given you something you can compare right in front of your eyes

Talking of reviews, let me directly quote what Gamespot said right in the LP PC review:

Furthermore, it's all capped with stunning visuals that surpass those of its console counterpart.Gamespot

Framerates are not an issue, because 30FPS, the same as on the console version are pretty much enough, the only dips it has manifest only during truly large explosions, and it never goes out of the easily playable and fluid looking range.

JT8b2z im not going to quote you as someone im sure will report me for long quote chains. As for your benchmark comparison the games I listed that i said looked better on 360 were as follows.

LP.

SC.DA

Just Cause

TR. Legends

I have not played every one of these games on a 8800gtx i did play LP on oneand had noticeable framerate problems it may be because of a driver problem. I palyed SC.DA on a x1900 and it looked and ran better on the 360. TR Legends and Just cause were both played on a 7800gtx and looked better on the 360. Now is it not fair to say the console verisons looked better especially in the case of SC.DA and Lp as both cards that came out for these games came out way after the 360?

Also keep in mind its hard to do benchmark comparisons as we dont know what the 360 versin is set at. LP in several reviews I recall them saying it runs at 60fps yet dev interviews says 30fps? I also recall 4x AA and 720 p but there is no way to confirm the 360 benchmarks. Also lets stop putting the 360 and PS3 in the same category all the time when we say consoles. Hell the 360 version of Fear troucnes the PS3 verison but the PS3 version of Oblivon looks better then teh 360 version. As many devs have stated if you build a game ground up for the PS3 it will do things significantly better then the 360 as it does simply have much more processing power and its architecture is quite differnt. From what I have noticed PS3 exclusives are simply some of the best looking games around (The Heavnelysword demo visually looks better then anything ive seen on the 360)

Polaris_choice

LP 360 runs at 30FPS, with actual framerate dips. The AA varies from 2x to 4x depending on the load. Yes, it natively renders at 1280x720(720p).

[QUOTE="Core0"]

Lost Planet you say?
Screenshot from the 8800GTS

VS The screenshot from the 360


Runs at a stable 30FPS with momentary dips to 20-24 FPS in big explosions. Note that the PC screenshot is a highly compressed jpeg too.
I think the discussion is over here.

And that's considering that LP's engine was made for the 360 and the 360 only.

For god's sake, even Gears of War, which has been fully optimized to take advantage of the 360's every last bit of power, ran at E3 at 1920x1200(!)x60FPS with higher detail levels on 8800GTS/C2D/2GB RAM PCs. As opposed to the 360's 1280x720x30FPS

Polaris_choice

You think Gears of War uses all the 360's power? Um I can name 3 games coming out this year coming to the 360 that blow Gears of War out of the water? And that pic of LP looks no better on pc an has extremly sporatic framerates.

Ps. when you click on your pick it gives spam please dont do that.

And, no, the Lost Planet PC screenshot looks far better. Check out the textures, the jaggies, or the lack of thereof, the particles that don't look like a mess of pixels, the sheer 1:1 size of the image. And, again, framerates? Those framerates are higher than what you get on the 360! Stop talking nonsense.

Also, spam? What are you talking about, it's Imageshack?

Oh, and finally, no, there are no games this year that "blow it out of the water". Mass Effect looks worse in action than I thought it would, not to mention the horrible lack of antialiasing. Bioshock is crossplatform, and, it isn't a title that was built to be a visual showcase either.

Lost Planet you say?
Screenshot from the 8800GTS

VS The screenshot from the 360


Runs at a stable 30FPS with momentary dips to 20-24 FPS in big explosions. Note that the PC screenshot is a highly compressed jpeg too.
I think the discussion is over here.

And that's considering that LP's engine was made for the 360 and the 360 only.

For god's sake, even Gears of War, which has been fully optimized to take advantage of the 360's every last bit of power, ran at E3 at 1920x1200(!)x60FPS with higher detail levels on 8800GTS/C2D/2GB RAM PCs. As opposed to the 360's 1280x720x30FPS

No reason in particular. I got mine mostly for media streaming, Dead Rising and Mass Effect, and I'm quite happy with it though, obviously it doesn't see anywhere as much use as my gaming PC does.

I'm AGP as well. I use the AGP variant for the same reason you do. Mullah. But, still, the X1600 pro isn't something to scoff at, regardless of its chip type.Verge_6