Quake 4 xbox 360 VIDEO

Status
Not open for further replies.
wow that video looked AWESOME :eek: and its going to be on a system that costs a few times less that a pc with comparable power :D mmmmmmmmmmm xbox 3 6 0
 
Rehevkor said:
I am going to make a note of this comment, so I can make you eat your words later on.

People always say stuff like this with EVERY new generation of consoles, and they are consistently proven wrong :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Proven wrong? Far Cry is still the best lookin' game out...and it came out a year ago! The only half decent PC game coming up is BF2, and as we all know, its not gonna be the best in terms of graphics. So whats the point of all these 600$+ videocards? Seems like people just upgrade to get the higher 3dmark score:rolleyes:
 
i miss the clear smooth graphics of the dreamcast.

i hope the xbox 360 feels more like a dreamcast and ps2 rather than an n64 and a xbox.

i prefer faster graphics and smoother framerates over prettier textures and lighting effects. hopefully the dual cores will help with this.
 
Ocean said:
i miss the clear smooth graphics of the dreamcast.

i hope the xbox 360 feels more like a dreamcast and ps2 rather than an n64 and a xbox.

i prefer faster graphics and smoother framerates over prettier textures and lighting effects. hopefully the dual cores will help with this.
Click to expand...

xbox360 has tri cores, so that might help your hopes up a little :D

if you see the ghost recon video :eek: that is the BEST video game explosion i have ever seen. I must have watched it about 36 times already.....its THAT good :D
 
Rehevkor said:
I am going to make a note of this comment, so I can make you eat your words later on.

People always say stuff like this with EVERY new generation of consoles, and they are consistently proven wrong :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

? consoles have always been more powerful than pc's when they release. On the other hand they are usually passed up within a year. Needless to say, if the XBox costs any less than $1000, it'll be a steal for the hardware.
 
ScreamingBroccoli said:
How true it is... Any one see perfect dark in action (the whole 15 secs of splitscreen glory on mtv last night...)? Didn't look too amazing to me, nothing a good comp can't handle now.
Click to expand...

You mock MTV for showing "15 secs of splitscreen glory", yet you seem to think that is adequate enough to pass judgement on the game...

ScreamingBroccoli said:
And think about it, yes the console may have the same power as a comp right now (or less, and optimized to make it comparable), but can a console do graphics/video editing?
Click to expand...

It could, but then again, this is a console.

ScreamingBroccoli said:
How about word proccessing or get updated news and weather right on the spot, what about provide multiple webbrowsers or free online games and free online game play (excluding Dreamcast, which was so sweet, and didn't make people have to pay, 'cept for phantasy star).
Click to expand...

Word processing could be done...but again, this is a console. The primary demograhpic wouldn't use it for that.

The Dreamcast was too far ahead of its time. Most games were quite laggy online. The broadband adapter was made in extremely limited quantities so that wasn't really an option.

ScreamingBroccoli said:
I can go down the endlist list of what a computer can do that a console cannot, negating, and putting the PC ahead in terms of what you get for the price !
Click to expand...

A Ferrari can do many things that my Z71 can't. That doesn't make it more cost-efficient.

By the way, we're talking about gaming computers here. Not word-processing machines or video-editing stations (Which would cost significantly more from the software alone aside from the hardware that could push it).
 
diehard said:
I for one Have both An HDTV and a monitor that runs 1600x1200. The HDTV's 1920x1080 (even if it is interlaced) is FAR more impressive, and that is what people will remember, not the technical specs of it. Your are right about more people having monitors than HDTV's, but isnt that kind of outwieghed by the fact that it would take a MINIMUM $1000 pc at Q4 launch to even look close to what the xbox 360 SHOULD look like? This is of course assuming they do a decent job of utilitzing its power.
Click to expand...

No, because it will take a MINIMUM $5000 tv to look anywhere near what the pc DOES look like
 
diehard said:
it would take a MINIMUM $1000 pc at Q4 launch to even look close to what the xbox 360 SHOULD look like? This is of course assuming they do a decent job of utilitzing its power.
Click to expand...

I wonder how well XBox 360 will run Photoshop. Better than a $1000 PC, do you think?

PCs are used for more than just gaming. True story, btw.
 
There are things that I think we should allow to be established before we go on having stupidass little flame wars about this. They are:

1) How good this game ACTUALLY looks on the Xbox. As in, not marketing shit that we all know is going to look amazing.
2) How good this game ACTUALLY looks on the PC.
3) How fast PCs are going to be when this game comes out. For some reason, I don't think the personal computing industry is just going to hit a standstill.
 
bipolar said:
I wonder how well XBox 360 will run Photoshop. Better than a $1000 PC, do you think?

PCs are used for more than just gaming. True story, btw.
Click to expand...

...and video-editing software alone can run you upwards of $500 itself, so please, save the comparisons.

People keep bringing up things like word-processing and video editing.

Yep...computers can run programs like that. How much are you paying for the privelage of having the software, let alone the hardware that is required to run it?
 
WickedAngel said:
...and video-editing software alone can run you upwards of $500 itself, so please, save the comparisons.

People keep bringing up things like word-processing and video editing.

Yep...computers can run programs like that. How much are you paying for the privelage of having the software, let alone the hardware that is required to run it?
Click to expand...
Well, for 99% of people, Photoshop Elements ($99) will do the job just fine. Gimp offers most of the features of Photoshop Elements for free. Windows Movie Maker is enough for the amateur, and that's free. OpenOffice is free.
 
Also, consoles have almost none of the community modification possibilities that PC games are known for. Just take a look at what's been made for UT2004. Many of the FREE mods for it are of the same quality and scale as a full retail game.

PC games will always win for flexibility and replay value. Consoles are simply too limited in their options.
 
computerpro3 said:
No, because it will take a MINIMUM $5000 tv to look anywhere near what the pc DOES look like
Click to expand...

My TV cost less then 3000$ CDN. Samsung is know as one of the best as well. So to say minimum 5000$ is just so very wrong.
 
bipolar said:
Well, for 99% of people, Photoshop Elements ($99) will do the job just fine. Gimp offers most of the features of Photoshop Elements for free. Windows Movie Maker is enough for the amateur, and that's free. OpenOffice is free.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about most people. You guys brought this up. We're talking about power-users who are going to build gaming computers, run high-end video editing software, and run Office applications.
 
Not really all that impressive to me, I've noticed in all the movies that the backgrounds are really confined and blurred closely in the distance like there is barely any anisotropic filtering and whenever there is any real action on screen things get choppy. The only thing that has really impressed me so far in these screenshots and videos is the amount of anti-aliasing but these games are most likely going to be at a 720p resolution so most higher end PCs now could replicate that level of anti-aliasing at that resolution fine I think.
 
Why are you noobs asking if a console can do word processing and video-rendering?! Jesus christ! I guess you have to find something the PC does well in, cuz as of now, its far from gaming :p
 
consoles can never beat pc specs. when this thing actualy come out i guarentee you all that ati and or nvidia will just release a new graphics card that is 2 or 3 times better then these shabby next gen consoles. pc's are the best, these next gen consoles only have a couple of montsh headstart
 
jonneymendoza said:
consoles can never beat pc specs. when this thing actualy come out i guarentee you all that ati and or nvidia will just release a new graphics card that is 2 or 3 times better then these shabby next gen consoles. pc's are the best, these next gen consoles only have a couple of montsh headstart
Click to expand...

yep, where do ppl think this technology come from? they say the same thing about consoles each time...they will probably delay the new vid cards just to help the console claim of being more powerful
 
uhh the tech in xb360 is from the r600 not r520, so it'll prob be more powerful than pcs for a year or so, then pc's will take over again. The people saying no kb/m, well the x360 has 2 or 3 usb ports which could be potentially used for one. I like both consoles and pcs but lets face it guys no computer even when the x360 comes out will even close to match the console, except in the ram department. most people don't even have a P4 3.2, much less 3 of the 3.2 PPC processors. well tricored anyway
 
jonneymendoza said:
consoles can never beat pc specs. when this thing actualy come out i guarentee you all that ati and or nvidia will just release a new graphics card that is 2 or 3 times better then these shabby next gen consoles. pc's are the best, these next gen consoles only have a couple of montsh headstart
Click to expand...

Oh, i'm sure ATi and NV will release thier new cards by the time these consoles come out. That isn't the problem. The problem is, how many PC games will take full advantage of it? Like I said before, Far Cry is the best looking PC game out, and that came out when the Radeon 9800 Pro's were the shit! Then ATi and NV released the NV40/R420, and everyone expected true-to-life graphics, which i'm sure those cards can produce, BUT! There are no games that have taken full advantage of these cards. This will always be the case with PC gaming....The *REAL* problem is, probably 70% of PC gamers are still using a Geforce MX, so developers can never make a game *Just* for a X800XT or a 6800Ultra. This isn't the case with the Xbox 360. Developers know everyone has a Tri-Core 3.2Ghz IBM CPU, 512Mb GDDR3 and a R500 ATi card. They can take FULL advantage of this any time they want.
 
WickedAngel said:
We're not talking about most people. You guys brought this up. We're talking about power-users who are going to build gaming computers, run high-end video editing software, and run Office applications.
Click to expand...

Sigh. If you *need* Photoshop 9 or $800 high end editing software, it's likely for your job, and therefore tax deductible (as is the computer, at least in part). So it's cheaper for them then a console would be. The casual user who blows $799 on Photoshop is an idiot and atypical of the average PC user.

And as I said, office software is free.
 
i'm a pc elitist guy but damn, even i am getting tired of the console vs pc !!!!!! ism. but for what it is, here's my own 2 cents cause well, i'm an attention whore like that.

consoles: great for what they are, the graphics look better b/c developers know what they have and can work it. they rule all in sports games and most race titles *realism titles excluded* and i am freaking loving the ps2 controller for God of War (GREAT game btw)

pc: great for what they are, the graphics never look as good initially at a console release b/c a console is aiming for a 3-4 year life, and a PC 1-2. plus the developers have to do a wide scaling for the different types of hardware. but pc's will always rule the strat, FPS, RPG realm.

like it or not i imagine that eventually,all Consoles/PCs will merge with PCs/consoles and then we'll all look like asses for trying to say that one is better than the other. :)
 
Lots of people think the Xbox was more powerful than high-end PC's when it came out.

Yet the XBox had:

A way slower CPU ---- It was 733mhz when most of us were running 1ghz or higher, and 1.8ghz was available.
Less system RAM ---- 64MB, and the RAM is shared with the videocard!
No faster of a Videocard ---- The videocard in the Xbox was a slightly slower videocard than Nvidia's next card, the Geforce 4 TI 4400. Yet the Radeon 8500 and Geforce 3 TI were also only a little bit slower than the 4400. Thus the cards were probably about equal in overall performance (yes, the xbox had an extra pipeline and some other newer stuff, but it also ran lower speeds and had the RAM issues mentioned below... OVERALL it balances out pretty good).
Slower video RAM ---- Shared system RAM resulting in a lower peak memory bandwidth than both the Radeon 8500 and the Geforce 3 TI.
Less video RAM ---- Maximum of 64mb available to it when 128mb was readily available on PC's.

BTW, I have seen screenshots of Doom3 on a Radeon 8500 and processor and mobo that were available in fall 2001, and they look quite a bit better than the Xbox version of Doom3. That alone should be sufficient to prove the point that the actual hardware in the Xbox was NOT superior to PC's available at that time.

I am not saying the Xbox didn't have awesome visuals that in many ways were superior to the visuals on PC games coming out at that time. As a matter of fact, in the "which had better looking games in 2001" debate the Xbox would win by a small margin. What I am saying is that it wasn't because the Xbox hardware was better, which it demonstrably wasn't, it was because the Xbox hardware was set in stone, allowing developers to use it more effectively. It took another year for PC games to start really using the hardware that was in many peoples PC's in late 2001 the way it was meant to be used. THAT is the reason PC graphics often seem to lag behind consoles, not any actual PC hardware inferiority.


 
diehard said:
Do we really know it used even 80% of the console? It didn't last long enough to find out. Many people thought that Halo on the xbox was going to be pretty much it, then Halo 2 came out 2 years later.
Click to expand...

HALO 2 came out 3 years after HALO 1. And yes, you've obviously never seen Soul Calibur on Dreamcast, that game tapped EVERY hardware limit on that little machine and man did it look drop-dead gorgeous. Soul Calibur 2 on XBOX looks barely any better than its original on Dreamcast, and the System-12 programming of Dreamcast made porting Soul Calibur from arcade to console, and then maxing out its graphical capabilities relatively easy.

At the time of its release, it may be difficult to actually believe, but the power of the XBOX was about on-par with the fastest PCs available - besides the CPU, the nVidia GPU was comparably faster than a GeForce 3 Ti-500, and the total memory bandwidth (6.4 GB/sec) was more than the fastest PCs available at the time. It didn't take long after release for the XBOX to be eclipsed in these areas though.

And people were running 1.8Ghz processors IN 2001?! Cut the bullshit and get a clue.
 
Have any of you even played Soul Calibur for DC lately? It most certainly do NOT look anywhere near the quality produced on the xbox. I won't question whether or not it tapped the DC's full spectrum of capabilities, but it isn't easily comparible with SC2 Xbox, and likely SC2 GC. Haven't recently checked PS2, so I can't comment there.
 
I think some of you need to go back and play Soul Calibur...if you even have it.

It's obvious that fond memories have made you blind to the truth. It looked superb, but it wasn't the best looking game for the Dreamcast by a longshot. It didn't "completely tap" the power of the system; I doubt it even tapped 40%.
 
Ballz2TheWallz said:
your a lost cause arent you?have you not seen the specs of the 360?currently better then the precious pc
Click to expand...

^^^ LMFAO!

You must be running a dell or something similar.

What is with all the console crap around here lately. I remember [H] being a computer enthusiast's home once...
 
orkan said:
^^^ LMFAO!

You must be running a dell or something similar.

What is with all the console crap around here lately. I remember [H] being a computer enthusiast's home once...
Click to expand...

...post your specs. I'm sure the X360 surpasses them as well (Unless you're running SLi with good cards, which would cost tons in and of itself).

Console specs aren't important anyways; developers get far more out of console hardware than they do with equivalent PC hardware, so it isn't necessary for consoles to have superior specs (Even though the X360 does, at this time, have superior hardware than most everyone here).
 
I am running:
A643200 @ 265x10
2x512 Corsair XMS pc3500 [BH5] @ 1:1 265mhz 2.2.2.7 1T
x850xt @ 648core/621mem

http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=354671452

There is no way in Hell... or Earth... that some goddamn console is going to trump my system. And if by some far fetch of the imagination it DID... I would simply upgrade.

Lets see your damn xbox run HL2 @ highest settings, 1600x1200, with 6xAA,16xAF. ... which my machine can.

What is the best resolution you can get out of a HD tv? ... 1080? ... certaintly not 1600x1200. And no TV ive ever seen looks as good as my two sony G420's... and again even if a TV did look as good as a top end CRT computer display... there is no way a current console can run a game that would take full advantage of it.

again I say... since when did [H] become the home of console lovers?
 
orkan said:
I am running:
A643200 @ 265x10
2x512 Corsair XMS pc3500 [BH5] @ 1:1 265mhz 2.2.2.7 1T
x850xt @ 648core/621mem

http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=354671452

There is no way in Hell... or Earth... that some goddamn console is going to trump my system. And if by some far fetch of the imagination it DID... I would simply upgrade.

Lets see your damn xbox run HL2 @ highest settings, 1600x1200, with 6xAA,16xAF. ... which my machine can.

What is the best resolution you can get out of a HD tv? ... 1080? ... certaintly not 1600x1200. And no TV ive ever seen looks as good as my two sony G420's... and again even if a TV did look as good as a top end CRT computer display... there is no way a current console can run a game that would take full advantage of it.

again I say... since when did [H] become the home of console lovers?
Click to expand...

Preach it brotha!
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Soul Caliber 2. Dreamcast. 1999.
Click to expand...


you are wrong. Soul calibur barely pushed 1 million polygons offically the Dreamcast could push 3 million. Shenmue 2 and Test drive lemans pushed 5 million
 
The highest of the high end PCs will push 1 trillion calculations per second, but that is damn expensive hardware compared to a $300-400 console.
 
orkan said:
I am running:
A643200 @ 265x10
2x512 Corsair XMS pc3500 [BH5] @ 1:1 265mhz 2.2.2.7 1T
x850xt @ 648core/621mem

http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=354671452

There is no way in Hell... or Earth... that some goddamn console is going to trump my system. And if by some far fetch of the imagination it DID... I would simply upgrade.

Lets see your damn xbox run HL2 @ highest settings, 1600x1200, with 6xAA,16xAF. ... which my machine can.

What is the best resolution you can get out of a HD tv? ... 1080? ... certaintly not 1600x1200. And no TV ive ever seen looks as good as my two sony G420's... and again even if a TV did look as good as a top end CRT computer display... there is no way a current console can run a game that would take full advantage of it.

again I say... since when did [H] become the home of console lovers?
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you're trying to justify the price you paid for your computer and that a 3-400 dollar console will easily trump it. When it comes out you won't be able to buy a tricore 3.2 ppc processor or an r500 which is a generation ahead of r520 supposidly. THe only thing your precious pc will be better is ram. O and one more thing, an hdtv can go up to 1920x1200 which is more than your pc monitor. Have fun upgrading and still not beating a 300 dollar console :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top