Xbox 720 Hardware guess from IGN

ekuest

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,091
@Tudz

There are two reasons here

On a console a game can be completely optimized for just the GPU that's in the console. This is not the case on the PC where the game has to be designed to get a good amount of performance out of a slew of different video cards. Obviously it's easier to wring more performance out of a 7800 when you are just designing for a 7800 than it is when you are designing for potentially 20 different cards.

Second on a console you can often get hardware level access rather than having to through an API (directX or OGL) to access those features. So when developing for a console you have low level access, you do not have this when developing for a PC game.

So PC gaming developers not only can't optimize for just one GPU, they lack the same level of access to the actual hardware and have to go through the directX API.

It's not that a console magically makes a piece of hardware better, it doesn't. It's just that being on a PC prevents you from having the same level of access to the GPU and from optomizing on one GPU so you can't wring the same amount of performance out of the GPU on the PC.

Which is why crying about "oh noes, it's not the fastest thing out there" doesn't really matter. Since the amount of access they have to it plus the amount of optimization they can do for it means that the performance is going to be better.
youve said this like 10 times now with zero evidence at all anywhere ever. zero. can you please post SOMETHING to help us understand what youre saying? we both agree with you that you can optimize for a locked OS, but im thinking that means maybe about a 20% gain at most, probably more like 10%. im not sure what amount tudz is thinking, but im pretty sure youre thinking its a lot more than either of us. if you have any evidence i would love to be wrong, but having gamed on a few consoles when i had to, i have been completely unimpressed by their lack of performance and am sure that a 6670 would be a disappointment too.
 

TheToE!

[H] Brewmaster
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
7,421
The defense of consoles astounds me. You can argue all you want to, play BF3 on a modest PC vs a 360/PS3 and tell me that the PC is gimped by an unoptimized OS..:rolleyes:

Even if they do manage to make games playable @ 1080/60fps, your still going to get buttfucked by MS. Charging for live wont go away. If rumors hold true it wont be able to play used games. You'll still have to use a controller. You'll still have to play against 12 year olds squealing into the mic "Pwnd Fag!". No thanks.
 

ekuest

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,091
The defense of consoles astounds me. You can argue all you want to, play BF3 on a modest PC vs a 360/PS3 and tell me that the PC is gimped by an unoptimized OS..:rolleyes:

Even if they do manage to make games playable @ 1080/60fps, your still going to get buttfucked by MS. Charging for live wont go away. If rumors hold true it wont be able to play used games. You'll still have to use a controller. You'll still have to play against 12 year olds squealing into the mic "Pwnd Fag!". No thanks.
heh cant you mute them all? ive never played live but if there isnt an extremely easy way to mute people id be very disappointed. i always thought it took too long in tf2. but yeah paying for live is dumb, as is the rumored not being able to play used games. (unless of course they charge significantly less for the games which they wont.) and as for a controller being "better for some games" well of course it is. thats why i own one for my computer. most people on xbox play mw3 and battlefield right? those are the big blockbuster titles? both of them are way better on a keyboard, which you can only do with a computer. however, if youre talking skyrim a controller is ok and if youre talking tomb raider then id say a controller is actually better. with a pc you can use whatever you want, with a console youre locked in.
 

sd11

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
1,141
The defense of consoles astounds me. You can argue all you want to, play BF3 on a modest PC vs a 360/PS3 and tell me that the PC is gimped by an unoptimized OS..:rolleyes:

Even if they do manage to make games playable @ 1080/60fps, your still going to get buttfucked by MS. Charging for live wont go away. If rumors hold true it wont be able to play used games. You'll still have to use a controller. You'll still have to play against 12 year olds squealing into the mic "Pwnd Fag!". No thanks.
Well of course. Because you can upgrade a PC and always throw more hardware at it. Of course BF3 looks better on my DX11 rigs at home than it does on my 360 and my PS3. Then again, those are all quadcore rigs with multi GPU and 8gb+ memory.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that consoles are more optimized and are able to squeeze a bit more out of the hardware they have.

I bought my consoles for fighting games, JRPGs, JSRPGs, shooters (not FPS games but true shooters), and a bunch of PSN/XBLA exclusives. And you know what, they do those perfectly. So I'm not really "missing" anything there. The fact that they also play FPS games so I can do that if I want is a side bonus.

And honestly live isn't that expensive and just another hulu+, netflix, premium cable type obnoxious thing you pay for. Oh well. And 12 years screaming and saying stupid stuff happens just as much on the PC side of things as it does on the console, and you can turn that off and ignore it.

I've gotten much more use, fun, and overall feel much happier with all three of my consoles than I do with my gaming PCs. Outside of Tribes Ascend, Blood Bowl, and Quake Live, I don't really use them. On the other hand the consoles get used daily by me and my friends for a variety of games. Lately though it's mostly been Street Fighter, MVC3, and Dark Souls.
 

Ocellaris

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
18,893
The defense of consoles astounds me. You can argue all you want to, play BF3 on a modest PC vs a 360/PS3 and tell me that the PC is gimped by an unoptimized OS..:rolleyes:

Even if they do manage to make games playable @ 1080/60fps, your still going to get buttfucked by MS. Charging for live wont go away. If rumors hold true it wont be able to play used games. You'll still have to use a controller. You'll still have to play against 12 year olds squealing into the mic "Pwnd Fag!". No thanks.
Oh please, this type of stuff is just as bad on the PC for many games unless you play on private servers.
 

sd11

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
1,141
I'm going to say it happens more on console.
Quake and Counter Strike were hot beds of racism, young kids talking crap, and inane babbling FAR before consoles were online.

And still, for the greatest amount of rednecks tossing nbombs and creative use of the word jew you can't top the PC.

Really though this happens in online FPS games. Those games just tend to attract the worst of humanity.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
18,400
And still, for the greatest amount of rednecks tossing nbombs and creative use of the word jew you can't top the PC.
I dunno about that! I think I've heard more nonsense coming from the 360 than in my previous 15 years of PC gaming. The damned thing comes with a microphone, so every idiot has one and feels obligated to use it. On the PC it's just a vocal minority.
 

TheToE!

[H] Brewmaster
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
7,421
I dunno about that! I think I've heard more nonsense coming from the 360 than in my previous 15 years of PC gaming. The damned thing comes with a microphone, so every idiot has one and feels obligated to use it. On the PC it's just a vocal minority.
This. The only reason I even had a 360 was for SF4/SSF4, but now that I've gone to PC there's no reason for it anymore so I sold it. I will say this. I miss the saltiness and the raging from console. I have had 1 person rage on me in SSF4AE PC where as it was a constant barrage of shit talk on XBL. Nowhere near the hatemail either. That was funny shit.
 

nerdydesi

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
1,093
I was disappointed to hear even with the Playstation Vita, not all games run at the screen's native resolution. Some are upscaled like Uncharted: Golden Abyss. That doesn't give me much hope all games on future consoles will run at native res too. :(
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
18,400
This. The only reason I even had a 360 was for SF4/SSF4, but now that I've gone to PC there's no reason for it anymore so I sold it. I will say this. I miss the saltiness and the raging from console. I have had 1 person rage on me in SSF4AE PC where as it was a constant barrage of shit talk on XBL. Nowhere near the hatemail either. That was funny shit.
I’m still guaranteed to get at least one hate mail every time I play SF4 on the PS3. Half of them seem to be related to choosing Zangief and the rest seem related to not choosing the same character every time or not giving someone 18 rematches.
I’ve been called everything under the sun at this point and even had a stalker for a little while.
While I don’t play COD or Halo, from what I’ve seen with some of my friends, they’re 100X worse. Especially on the 360 where sending a voicemail is so easy.
 

sd11

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
1,141
This. The only reason I even had a 360 was for SF4/SSF4, but now that I've gone to PC there's no reason for it anymore so I sold it. I will say this. I miss the saltiness and the raging from console. I have had 1 person rage on me in SSF4AE PC where as it was a constant barrage of shit talk on XBL. Nowhere near the hatemail either. That was funny shit.
The problem is that the PC isn't used for tournaments and none of the better players are on it. So it's impossible to find a skilled person on it at all, they don't exist. Not that your odds are good with XBL or PSN, they are rarely if ever online, but it can happen. Plus at any skilled gathering that PC stuff won't get touched.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
@Tudz

There are two reasons here

On a console a game can be completely optimized for just the GPU that's in the console. This is not the case on the PC where the game has to be designed to get a good amount of performance out of a slew of different video cards. Obviously it's easier to wring more performance out of a 7800 when you are just designing for a 7800 than it is when you are designing for potentially 20 different cards.

Second on a console you can often get hardware level access rather than having to through an API (directX or OGL) to access those features. So when developing for a console you have low level access, you do not have this when developing for a PC game.

So PC gaming developers not only can't optimize for just one GPU, they lack the same level of access to the actual hardware and have to go through the directX API.

It's not that a console magically makes a piece of hardware better, it doesn't. It's just that being on a PC prevents you from having the same level of access to the GPU and from optomizing on one GPU so you can't wring the same amount of performance out of the GPU on the PC.

Which is why crying about "oh noes, it's not the fastest thing out there" doesn't really matter. Since the amount of access they have to it plus the amount of optimization they can do for it means that the performance is going to be better.
Maybe you don't understand what evidence is. What you gave me just there is reasoning, not evidence. Evidence is would be describing a console which plays a game with more eye candy and higher resolution than a similarly equipped PC.

Reasoning without evidence is meaningless. Trust me, I'm a researcher :p Its my job to think up reasoning as to why if I do experiment X I will get result Y, the reasoning is meaningless until you've actually done the experiment. And you know what, sometimes you do the experiment and think "oh shit, that's not what I expected based on my reasoning". Which is why reasoning is meaningless without conclusive evidence.

Personally I have no doubt a console is more optimised than a PC.... but in the context of graphics performance I don't think the optimisation is significant enough to bear mentioning. My evidence? Well I already posted 4 or 5 videos to people playing PC games on an 8600GT (a card less powerful than what is in a PS3) with what appears to be similar graphics levels to consoles. I also have my personal experience of playing games on consoles and on my old PC and seeing that the relative graphical output (eye candy, resolution) of my PC matched the actual performance difference of the graphics cards.

You yourself said it...
Take a PC, load up XP or win7, slap in 256mb ram and a 7800gt and then try to play any current cross platform game. It won't, at all. The PS3 can do that at 720p and mid details. That should tell you something.
Well I've showed you that actually, yeah, it probably could, my evidence is videos of people playing on an 8600GT at low res with medium/low settings, a card which is less powerful than a 7800GT.

There are certainly individual GAMES which are significantly more optimised than others. I'm not SEEING this optimisation you speak of where consoles make use of this great optimisation compared to a PC, only hearing you (and others) talk about it.

I also notice you shying away from the question I asked...
me said:
My argument is if a 6670 can barely push 1080p on a PC, it'll barely be able to push 1080p on a console. Just like a 7800GT would struggle to play games above 720p, just like a console powered by a 7800 derived card (the PS3) also struggles to play games above 720p. Do you disagree?
Consoles do tend to have longer life spans than graphics cards, this has nothing to do with optimisation though, this is because of support. Games developers continue to support consoles until a new one is released. Graphics cards on the other hand are being released constantly, so support for a graphics card only lasts as long as game developers are willing to put in graphics levels low enough for it to still run on it. But even saying that, if an 8600GT still plays games, I'm pretty sure a 7800GT would still play games and that's as old as a current gen console, so even my statement there could be wrong :p
 
Last edited:

TheToE!

[H] Brewmaster
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
7,421
The problem is that the PC isn't used for tournaments and none of the better players are on it. So it's impossible to find a skilled person on it at all, they don't exist. Not that your odds are good with XBL or PSN, they are rarely if ever online, but it can happen. Plus at any skilled gathering that PC stuff won't get touched.
Any delusions I had of tournament play have long since passed. lol
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
19,469
Yes, you do. The OS of the PS3 and 360 are not a giant bloated pile of shit like windows is. And in the console you have hardware level access rather than the giant turd that is directX. So consoles are actually able to get more out of their hardware than a PC is! Amazing, I know.

Have fun and do it this way. Take a PC, load up XP or win7, slap in 256mb ram and a 7800gt and then try to play any current cross platform game. It won't, at all. The PS3 can do that at 720p and mid details. That should tell you something.



This has nothing to do with consoles being more efficient with their hardware, PC's being terrible with their hardware and just throwing more horsepower at it to do what hey do.

I bought Batman for the consoles. Good leaderboards, and there was nothing about the PC good enough to make it worth bothering about, oh and it was buggy as shit.



That mouse only applies to FPS and some other games. Not all games are better with KBM. And not everybody mainly plays FPS games. There are plenty of great console games I like and they work fine for them. The only PC games I've played lately are Tribes, Quake Live, and Blood Bowl.
The PS3/360 cannot play very many games at 720 that are graphically demanding without using tricks like pre-render and cutting corners in shadow details, etc.....nice try though....
 

XvMMvX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,664
You'll still have to use a controller.
This argument is so old...just shut the fuck up about it already. The only reason you PC gamers like your keyboard and mouse is because you are used to it.

You probably jumped on and got fucking owned with a controller so you automatically think it sucks. Well it doesn't and once you get the hang of it (GASP!!!) you realize that it is much more comfortable than that antiquated keyboard you have. Yes if you put the two against each other the KB/M would win...but it is just point in click how the fuck hard is that. A controller you actually have to aim and practice with to get good.
 

ekuest

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,091
This argument is so old...just shut the fuck up about it already. The only reason you PC gamers like your keyboard and mouse is because you are used to it.

You probably jumped on and got fucking owned with a controller so you automatically think it sucks. Well it doesn't and once you get the hang of it (GASP!!!) you realize that it is much more comfortable than that antiquated keyboard you have. Yes if you put the two against each other the KB/M would win...but it is just point in click how the fuck hard is that. A controller you actually have to aim and practice with to get good.
dudebro calm down bro. you just admitted that kbm would win right after you say we only like it because we are used to it. :confused: you point out that "it is just point in click how the fuck hard is that." yeah exactly, its superior. you just point and click. you dont have to wait 3 seconds to turn around. you dont have to "get used to it." you say its not better and then list a bunch of reasons why its better. :D

kbm is better for accuracy, speed, and complex/numerous controls. there really isnt an argument against that. controllers are simpler and more comfortable. i have an xbox controller for my pc for use in chill games (mostly sp adventure games like tomb raider and PoP) so i can sit back in bed and relax. but i would never play anything competitive or difficult with it.

sounds to me more like you suck at kbm. thats why my gf refuses to play any pc game on kbm, and uses my xbox controller instead. :p
 

XvMMvX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,664
you dont have to wait 3 seconds to turn around.
Exaggerate much?

yeah exactly, its superior
Superior when placed againts one another... Not superior in implemenation. You have to sit at a desk which blows....

sounds to me more like you suck at kbm.
I am just fine with a kbm...I just like to enjoy sitting on my couch with some BF3 than uptight at my desk like I am working...

kbm is better for accuracy, speed, and complex/numerous controls.
Only when everyone else has the same accuracy and speed...this is the point you are not getting. A controller is great when everyone is on a level playing field...I had to practice at Quake 3 to get good with KBM same when I started playing Halo 2 with a controller...but what I found out was that chilling on the couch pwning noobs was a lot more enjoyable then sitting at a desk.

What happens is you kbm leet PC gamers get on a PS3 and get pwn'd by some 12 year old... get butthurt... then proceed to say that a controller sucks... you fail to mention that the 12 kid just pwn'd you with the same device... so in short it is that you suck with a controller. Also in short sitting at a fucking desk for the sake of accuracy, speed and general leetness sucks also.
 

sd11

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
1,141
LOL, i'd love to go just to see it. I'm in florida.
You should! And Miami has a bit of a scene. EVO and fighting game tournaments are great even if you aren't good. Sooooo much better than any other gaming event. 99% of the people that go aren't all that great and are just there to hang out and play games and have fun. They're still better than any of the fucks you'd find online though.

Great memories of hanging out in Vegas with Japanese players and showing up to drunk to player your match in the top 64.
 

sd11

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
1,141
KBM is better for FPS true, but you still have to play on a fucking PC, which SUCKS.
 

ekuest

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,091
Exaggerate much?
yeah, usually. :/

to each his own i guess. maybe its cuz i play 0-5 hours of games a week, so i dont mind sitting at my desk for it. working 50+ hrs/wk and having a gf and living in HI theres just too much other stuff to do than sit around and game online. ive basically stopped playing multiplayer since its the same thing over and over and only play sp. so its not really about whether im matched with who im playing with, its just about having better controls for the game. kbm gives me that for fps, which is my favorite genre. recently played ghostbusters and tomb raider though, and did both on controller. i just go with whichever control system i like better for the game.
 

daglesj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
5,275
It's not making it more efficient at all. It's a matter of PC games having to support a slew of different GPUs where a console game can be optimized for a single GPU, which is a huge advantage. It's also a matter of console game developers having hardware level access to a GPU where a PC game developer has to go through directX, another huge advantage.

It's not that the actual hardware is different, it's just that the PC platform is unable to fully use things to their full potential.
Dont worry. They just need to talk to some console developers. Though some folks struggle with concepts that frighten them.;)
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
19,469
This argument is so old...just shut the fuck up about it already. The only reason you PC gamers like your keyboard and mouse is because you are used to it.

You probably jumped on and got fucking owned with a controller so you automatically think it sucks. Well it doesn't and once you get the hang of it (GASP!!!) you realize that it is much more comfortable than that antiquated keyboard you have. Yes if you put the two against each other the KB/M would win...but it is just point in click how the fuck hard is that. A controller you actually have to aim and practice with to get good.
sorry to break this to you but a Keyboard and mouse are much more precise than a controller is.......

KBM is better for FPS true, but you still have to play on a fucking PC, which SUCKS.
lol really? Playing batman AC on a PC @ 1080p is better than playing it on a console sub 720p and having it scaled..
 

ekuest

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,091
Dont worry. They just need to talk to some console developers. Though some folks struggle with concepts that frighten them.;)
i take it youre a console developer? if not then any sort of actual evidence still hasnt been presented for your side. after like 20 posts.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
Dont worry. They just need to talk to some console developers. Though some folks struggle with concepts that frighten them.;)
If it were true then someone should be able to point to some evidence, oh wait, no one has :p I've said multiple times I'll be more than happy to change my opinion based on some actual proof. But no worries, you continue to attack the people rather than the argument because you can't deal with either providing some evidence or admitting that you actually have no conclusive evidence.

I am not struggling with a concept that frightens me :p I am struggling with the sheer lack of proof.

Its like having 2 cars of the same engine power, car A and car B, and being told why car A is faster than car B because it has a carbon fibre body and its seats are lower to the ground, yet no one has actually taken them to a track to see that car A is actually faster than car B, or even checked whether the carbon body of car A is any lighter than car B :p People keep saying that the console is more efficient with its power without actually showing that it IS.

I know the reasons, I've read them countless times over several years. I'm asking for actual proof, as my own experience is counter to this community perpetuated idea that consoles make better use of less GPU power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Conker

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
3,025
lol you guys act like they want to do another xbox 360 move. They lost tons of money upfront on hardware for the 360 since it was way too new and costly. They finally got to break even like nintendo at the start and you guys start complaining. Can't blame them if they want to start going positive from the start. They learned from nintendo's success with the wii and probably sony will follow the same path also. Don't really expect monster power houses this time around. Its going to be very conservative most likely.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
lol you guys act like they want to do another xbox 360 move. They lost tons of money upfront on hardware for the 360 since it was way too new and costly. They finally got to break even like nintendo at the start and you guys start complaining. Can't blame them if they want to start going positive from the start. They learned from nintendo's success with the wii and probably sony will follow the same path also. Don't really expect monster power houses this time around. Its going to be very conservative most likely.
I'm not expecting big powerhouses like the 360 and PS3, I doubt either Sony or MS want to go with consoles that are that expensive at launch. But that said I'd also expect more than just the incremental performance increase in going to a 6670 based GPU and at least go to something that can deal with 1080p a bit better. Its nothing new for consoles to not make much (if any) money off the console itself but rather from peripherals and games, and even if you release something shit it still costs money to develop it, set up new manufacturing systems, all that jazz, so you want an upgrade that is at least meaningful.

The fact Nintendo did so well is the gimmick of a control style that appealled to casual and party type gamers. I don't really think a similar system released again would perform as well in the market now.
 

ekuest

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,091
nah once the novelty of the wii motion sensors wore off the thing sold like shit. everyone knows now that its not a good console, its only still used by children and adult women. xbox and ps3 both seem to still be selling pretty well. i think you might be right about them trying to go with a less powerful system this time, and thats what im afraid of.

maybe instead of having different models where they rip you off on hdd size, they can give you a decent hdd from the start and rip you off by having different level gpus available. that way the games can be programmed for 2 or 3 gpus and can be run at different graphics levels depending on what the consumer desires. actually i think thats a pretty good idea. :)
 

XvMMvX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,664
sorry to break this to you but a Keyboard and mouse are much more precise than a controller is.......
Never said it wasn't...you can't read good...

I said that when you play againts other people with equal hardware it works fine and turns out to much more enjoyable and comfortable than a kb/m setup. Sitting in my recliner playing BF is much more enjoyable than sitting at my desk. I don't care how much more accurate your KB/M are because I am not trying to go against you.

All you want to do is say that a KB/M would beat a controller....we yeah it would....but what is really happening is all the leet PC gamers get owned when they try a controller so it must suck....it can't possibly be that the "12 year old mouth breather" is better than them with a given set of hardware...so you have to flee back to your basement with your "surperior hardware" claiming that a controller sucks....

Back on topic... I have to agree that both Nintendo and Sony are going to go the Nintendo route this time. Incremental upgrade with increased features... gone are the days of pushing hardware at a loss.
 

ekuest

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,091
Never said it wasn't...you can't read good...

I said that when you play againts other people with equal hardware it works fine and turns out to much more enjoyable and comfortable than a kb/m setup. Sitting in my recliner playing BF is much more enjoyable than sitting at my desk. I don't care how much more accurate your KB/M are because I am not trying to go against you.

All you want to do is say that a KB/M would beat a controller....we yeah it would....but what is really happening is all the leet PC gamers get owned when they try a controller so it must suck....it can't possibly be that the "12 year old mouth breather" is better than them with a given set of hardware...so you have to flee back to your basement with your "surperior hardware" claiming that a controller sucks....

Back on topic... I have to agree that both Nintendo and Sony are going to go the Nintendo route this time. Incremental upgrade with increased features... gone are the days of pushing hardware at a loss.
we understand that. thats why i have an xbox controller for my pc, as do many other serious pc gamers. it is great for sitting back and playing some casual games. but when it comes to really getting into a serious game like mass effect or crysis, we hate the limitations that a controller puts on you. its not that we suck with controllers or that we dont understand what youre saying, its that we have all tried both many many times and prefer each in certain situations. i have played ps3, ps2, ps1, xbox, xbox 360, n64, snes, and nes. and dreamcast. its not like i dont understand what youre saying or ive never used a controller. i just disagree.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
I think what you prefer is just what you get used to in the end, and also how you're set up. Personally I have quite a comfy chair at my computer desk and watch most TV through my PC anyway and after many years PC gaming, I just prefer KBM for most games. Often I'll give the controller a bash just to end up playing with KBM again. When I want to sit down and have a few beers with mates, I prefer a controller though.

When I'm actually at one of my friend's houses I much prefer to game on his consoles than his PC because he just doesn't have things laid out as nicely with his PC as I do at my house.

Different strokes for different folks and all that jazz. There's no doubting the precision of the KBM over a controller, that doesn't make it "better" for any one person, just like a controller playing from the couch is a pretty meaningless advantage for someone like me.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,618
The problem with comparing games on kbm and controllers is that most PC games are ports from consoles. So the game is inherently limited. They don't push a PC to what it can really do.

Before the invasion of the consoles, one of my favorite games with Heavy Gear II. It had is problems. But failing to exploit a keyboard wasn't one of them. To get your vehicle (a 'gear') moving fluidly from skating transitioning to running and jumping on que, to turning the torso and the head independently, its the most demanding control situation I ever experienced. You used over 80% of the keyboard keys to work your vehicle.

That will never be on a console. So that will never be ported over to a PC so there can never be a comparison.

A crappy recording of a song isn't going to sound much better on a $1000 system over a $100 sound system. And that's why PC vs. Console comparisons fail.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
19,469
Never said it wasn't...you can't read good...

I said that when you play againts other people with equal hardware it works fine and turns out to much more enjoyable and comfortable than a kb/m setup. Sitting in my recliner playing BF is much more enjoyable than sitting at my desk. I don't care how much more accurate your KB/M are because I am not trying to go against you.

All you want to do is say that a KB/M would beat a controller....we yeah it would....but what is really happening is all the leet PC gamers get owned when they try a controller so it must suck....it can't possibly be that the "12 year old mouth breather" is better than them with a given set of hardware...so you have to flee back to your basement with your "surperior hardware" claiming that a controller sucks....

Back on topic... I have to agree that both Nintendo and Sony are going to go the Nintendo route this time. Incremental upgrade with increased features... gone are the days of pushing hardware at a loss.
negative, precise aiming is #1 in FPS it makes llong distance killing a breeze.....
 

dario03

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
501
Never said it wasn't...you can't read good...

I said that when you play againts other people with equal hardware it works fine and turns out to much more enjoyable and comfortable than a kb/m setup. Sitting in my recliner playing BF is much more enjoyable than sitting at my desk. I don't care how much more accurate your KB/M are because I am not trying to go against you.

All you want to do is say that a KB/M would beat a controller....we yeah it would....but what is really happening is all the leet PC gamers get owned when they try a controller so it must suck....it can't possibly be that the "12 year old mouth breather" is better than them with a given set of hardware...so you have to flee back to your basement with your "surperior hardware" claiming that a controller sucks....

Back on topic... I have to agree that both Nintendo and Sony are going to go the Nintendo route this time. Incremental upgrade with increased features... gone are the days of pushing hardware at a loss.
Thats a personal prefrence. I don't usually play console games while sitting back or laying down or whatever. When I am playing a console game I basically end up sitting in just about the same way as I do when playing on the PC. So in my case I would rather have the kbm in FPS/RTS games since it is technically superior AND comfortable for me. It has nothing to do with being a leet PC gamer. Actually I started off as a console gamer and still play them. I do just fine in console games but I would rather play at my best instead of feeling like I'm playing with a handicap (even if everyone else is to).
 

sd11

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
1,141
lol really? Playing batman AC on a PC @ 1080p is better than playing it on a console sub 720p and having it scaled..
Yes really, for most people playing on the PC sucks.

1. Most people do not actually own a PC capable of playing modern console games at 1080p with the higher details. And that's been the case ever since laptop sales started being higher than desktop sales. So for the majority of people, it looks and runs better on their console than the laptop or computing desktop device that they have.

2. Even if they could run it playing on a PC means having to deal with the mess of using a computer. While some of us like that, most people do not. Hence why computer companies are always trying to pass things off as easier, nicer, better user experience. Because for a lot of people the experience of using a computer is like dental surgery. The fact that so many PC games ship in a horrible state or you're waiting on driver updates from your video card company does not make this situation any better.

3. XBOX Live and PSN are actually good things. I know this confusing the crap out of a lot of PC gamers, but they are great. For friends, leader boards, trophies, and all the "social" aspects of gaming, people like them.

That's why PC's lose the hell out to consoles for a lot of people. The consoles social experience is better for them, PC's are too obnoxious anyways, and the graphical argument is moot when their computing platforms can't run the game at all or run it worse.
 

ekuest

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,091
Yes really, for most people playing on the PC sucks.

1. Most people do not actually own a PC capable of playing modern console games at 1080p with the higher details. And that's been the case ever since laptop sales started being higher than desktop sales. So for the majority of people, it looks and runs better on their console than the laptop or computing desktop device that they have.

2. Even if they could run it playing on a PC means having to deal with the mess of using a computer. While some of us like that, most people do not. Hence why computer companies are always trying to pass things off as easier, nicer, better user experience. Because for a lot of people the experience of using a computer is like dental surgery. The fact that so many PC games ship in a horrible state or you're waiting on driver updates from your video card company does not make this situation any better.

3. XBOX Live and PSN are actually good things. I know this confusing the crap out of a lot of PC gamers, but they are great. For friends, leader boards, trophies, and all the "social" aspects of gaming, people like them.

That's why PC's lose the hell out to consoles for a lot of people. The consoles social experience is better for them, PC's are too obnoxious anyways, and the graphical argument is moot when their computing platforms can't run the game at all or run it worse.
ugh your arguments just get more and more off topic every time you post. i dont think you even know what youre arguing any more. youre just trying to rationalize your love of an inferior product.
 

Master Blaster

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
1,442
youve said this like 10 times now with zero evidence at all anywhere ever. zero. can you please post SOMETHING to help us understand what youre saying? we both agree with you that you can optimize for a locked OS, but im thinking that means maybe about a 20% gain at most, probably more like 10%. im not sure what amount tudz is thinking, but im pretty sure youre thinking its a lot more than either of us. if you have any evidence i would love to be wrong, but having gamed on a few consoles when i had to, i have been completely unimpressed by their lack of performance and am sure that a 6670 would be a disappointment too.
Actually, sd11 is correct. Bare-metal programming, like consoles, is different to an extent than that of their PC counterparts - as you agreed. Things like RAM are completely different also.
For instance, people who say, "look how cheap RAM is today, console manu's should just though 8GB in their new system..."; this doesn't work out like that because the mechanics of the RAM are different between the two. I don't have the science behind it, so I'd say go ask your question on neogaf and have your answer.
 
Last edited:
Top