people keep saying that this article is a waste of time. i dont agree with that. tons of people own computers. lots of them play consoles, but not much (or any) pc games. they can go to gamespot to check out stuff about console games and find out that they could possibly run spore on their crappy computer. yay! that means pc gaming gets a boost by a game marketed to everybody. i play games on all the consoles, but i wish my 3 grand investment in my pc isn't wasted. if gamespot's article helps people understand they can buy this game, that means more copies sell. when that happens boys and girls, pc gamers win.
i have them both and i think there is a bigger difference between the two systems than visuals. the 360 is a better gaming machine. live is excelent, psn is slow. in-game xbox guide is sweet, playstation still doesn't have in-game cross media bar. not having to install games to my hard drive is better. the 360 controller is better. tons more games to choose from is better on the 360. ps3 has few exclusives worth a crap. but i cant wait for mgs 4. i like achievements, so if a sweet new game is coming out on both systems, i'm getting the 360 version. the online is better, controller is better, and i get to add to my gamerscore. my point is that the 360 is a better choice between the two. if you are a diehard playstation fan you don't care what i have to say. but by the time the next xbox comes out you will have no choice but to feel a bit ripped off by sony and their 10 year machine
i've always felt that halo had boring level geometry. i still plan on playing halo 3, but it'll be when it arrives from gamefly. to put it simply: halo's strength isn't its graphics.
good advice. why play a game at low settings. its like showing up to skate with a wal-mart skateboard. sure, it's still bioshock on low settings, but it's lame.
i sure hope this isn't an example of what to expect from directx 10. i have vista and an 8800 gtx. my peak frame rate was about the same on each demo. the problem is that the dx 9 demo never dropped below 60 frames per second. the dx 10 demo dropped as low as 30. i was under the impression that direct x 10 was more of a performance benefit than visuals. but this demo being the only thing that i can test with so far, makes me feel like i wasted my money. this is a joke. now i know why there are no direct x 10 games yet. crysis better not suck!
this game is totally one of the greatest games of all time. i'm surprised that it wasn't included until now. just figured it was already, come on guys, took long enough.
at least the 8800 gtx isn't lame compaired to the new ati card. i have been an ati fan for a while but i bought the gtx a few months ago. i'm not upset about it.
i think its better art, not more powerfull graphics. the first one looked and played great. i'm not sure if they could squeeze much more power out of the ps2.
i just got vista and an 8800 and i've been waiting for a game to test my rig. I played the demo for Supreme Commander. Didn't like it all that much. I guess I'm more impressed with Company of Heros. Command and Conquer 3 looks crazy good. Supreme Commander has pretty poor visuals for a game that needs so much power. I just hope that other new games don't require as much power to look this weak. By the way, CoH plays at an average fps of 194.3 on beta drivers. Can't wait for the DirectX 10 patch!
nazraq's comments