Xbox 360 has 'a lot more than two years' left, MS boss says
267 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RichyZ;36278486]racing sims, fighting games, and spectacle fighters would like a word with you[/QUOTE]
Third person games in general are better with a controller, mostly because where your character is is more importand than perfect aim. And keyboards absolutely suck for precise movement. I mean it gets the job done but you have to do half the work with the mouse. Third person games you can go a fair amount of time only using the left thumbstick.
(okay not really)
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;36278602]Third person games in general are better with a controller, mostly because where your character is is more importand than perfect aim. And keyboards absolutely suck for precise movement. I mean it gets the job done but you have to do half the work with the mouse. Third person games you can go a fair amount of time only using the left thumbstick.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I hate how thumbsticks always sling back to the middle, it always throws me off and you have constantly push on it to prevent it from moving back, with the mouse you can just hold it there and you're done i guess its a dumb complaint but it bothers me
glorious pc gaming master race
[QUOTE=goldenbuttocks;36278735]glorious pc gaming master race[/QUOTE]
Holy crap, I just realised it's been 5 pages and this image still hasn't been posted. I think that's a new record.
probably delaying it because their sweatshop workers are on strike
[QUOTE=M.Ciaster;36279596]Holy crap, I just realised it's been 5 pages and this image still hasn't been posted. I think that's a new record.[/QUOTE]
lol i was kidding, i just wanted to see how much agrees i would get. honestly i think it doesn't matter what platform you play on.
>Just going on FP
>See the title of this hread
>MFW
[video=youtube;fQ9hF32vf1o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ9hF32vf1o&feature=plcp[/video]
[editline]11th June 2012[/editline]
Also, I hope next Gen they're system isn't fucking dogshit, I went through 9 360s before I sold it and got a Ps3.
[QUOTE=BlankSlate;36280847]I went through 9 360s[/QUOTE]
seriously?
i'm still on the one i bought back at launch hahah.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36280891]seriously?
i'm still on the one i bought back at launch hahah.[/QUOTE]
Yup. No lie.
[QUOTE=mopman999;36278697]I disagree. I hate how thumbsticks always sling back to the middle, it always throws me off and you have constantly push on it to prevent it from moving back, with the mouse you can just hold it there and you're done i guess its a dumb complaint but it bothers me[/QUOTE]
You may notice I said thumbsticks are better than keyboards. Everyone knows mice are more accurate than thumbsticks.
I swear it's like PC gamers misunderstand simple points on purpose.
[QUOTE=BlankSlate;36280847]
Also, I hope next Gen they're system isn't fucking dogshit, I went through 9 360s before I sold it and got a Ps3.[/QUOTE]
If you don't mind my asking, did you pay for all 9 of those systems or were most of them covered by warranty? I've had several people at my store buying an Xbox 360 who tell me it's their 3rd, 4th, 5th one and I can't help but think "So...by now you've spent more than $1000 on a system that has failed on you (x amount of times) in the 7 years the system has been out. Why do you stick with it if it's so unreliable?"
Personally, I would have ditched the thing after the second failure.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;36281272][B][U]some people like to play consoles more than pcs, its strange but hey, whatevs[/U][/B]
besides, $1000 isn't too much over the years, if he bought them from 2005 to now, he'd only be spending roughly $150 and that's if they were still over 150 after the year 2010, which isn't really the case.
i mean, i can find $40 360s on the market, hell, even $60 ps3s, you just gotta look hard enough[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say it's strange; some people just find it more comfortable. I play PS3 and I love the thing to death, but I also love my PC for the customization and extra power it has. To clarify, I'm basically asking "Why are you sticking with the same system that has failed you so consistently in the past?"
The two reasons I can think of are 1) friends and 2) system exclusives, which, granted, may be enough for some.
[QUOTE=mopman999;36267351]That's just part of the physics engine.
And I'm still waiting for rockstar to make a decent port. I can't even run LA noire on my much higher than average machine.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? L.A Noire was a decent port, it looked fine and ran great on my machine
[QUOTE=Big Blue;36278379]if you were good with a mouse you'd think otherwise[/QUOTE]
I have never heard such a pointless argument before, seriously?
[QUOTE=Maloof?;36255582]I was having a talk with a friend the other day about the effects of what we'd now consider 'low-end' consoles restricting the development of games.
But look at the new Unreal engine and what's possible with that. Then look at the system requirements, which are ridiculously low. Look at the system requirements of Crysis 2, a game which was technically and visually beautiful (gameplay wise... nah).
If there's one good thing I think the 'outdated' console does to the industry is that it makes developers work on engines until they're the most optimised, streamlined engines they can be, getting the best visual effects for the least possible hardware requirements.
As opposed to what they were doing in 2007 with Crysis and making consumers pay for huge hardware upgrades just so that they could run the games.[/QUOTE]
I can't believe this has so many dumbs given how insanely true this is. I mean, like you've all said, the 360 hardware is outdated as fuck now, and I wouldn't disagree on that, but watching things like the Halo 4 cutscenes and gameplay video from E3 it astounds me how good they can make games look on that thing still simply because the software is a lot more optimized now than it ever has been before.
It's good practice to make sure whatever you create uses the least amount of possible resources while maximising efficiency because it means you're not being lazy, saves your customers money in the long run by making sure they don't have to constantly upgrade, and means that when somebody does have a beast of a system running they can make the game look really, REALLY nice. Don't just rate him dumb because he said something positive about a fucking console - that kind of attitude is pretty fucking ridiculous.
Not to mention, as far as I'm concerned games like GTA IV, Halo Reach and Crysis 2 all look perfectly fine graphically to me - I don't need photorealism to enjoy a game, I'd rather it looked decent and had an interesting story, with well developed characters and writing instead of looking abso-fucking-lutely beautiful but with next to no story or character development.
You find that kind of attitude a lot here. Unfortunately.
i got rated dumb like 30 times and no-one's ever even bothered replying in any way.
seems pretty lazy to me.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;36281428]What are you talking about? L.A Noire was a decent port, it looked fine and ran great on my machine[/QUOTE]
For what it's worth L.A. Noire runs great on my Macbook so there shouldn't be any reason why it wouldn't run on an actual gaming machine.
I really like discussions, but to a point people are so entrenched in their view without even taking notice of any opposing arguments. Selective Perception I call that. I accept both sides a lot, but people can't seem to be ambivalent when it comes to such things.
Just thinking to myself there's kids out there who were born at it's release and have played it up to now. The only console that I can think of that has done that would have been the megadrive, which seen release in 89 was it? and was played right up to 1997.
[QUOTE=sltungle;36283754]I can't believe this has so many dumbs given how insanely true this is. I mean, like you've all said, the 360 hardware is outdated as fuck now, and I wouldn't disagree on that, but watching things like the Halo 4 cutscenes and gameplay video from E3 it astounds me how good they can make games look on that thing still simply because the software is a lot more optimized now than it ever has been before.
It's good practice to make sure whatever you create uses the least amount of possible resources while maximising efficiency because it means you're not being lazy, saves your customers money in the long run by making sure they don't have to constantly upgrade, and means that when somebody does have a beast of a system running they can make the game look really, REALLY nice. Don't just rate him dumb because he said something positive about a fucking console - that kind of attitude is pretty fucking ridiculous.
Not to mention, as far as I'm concerned games like GTA IV, Halo Reach and Crysis 2 all look perfectly fine graphically to me - I don't need photorealism to enjoy a game, I'd rather it looked decent and had an interesting story, with well developed characters and writing instead of looking abso-fucking-lutely beautiful but with next to no story or character development.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, shame this astounding optimization doesn't carry over to PC in most cases. GTAIV for instance, was pretty awfully ported. It's great to have good optimization and all, as like you said it's a great way of having technically advanced games without having to use top tier hardware, but there are limitations to optimization, and it's just sad to see console-centric developers just cater to those limits instead of exploiting the greater potential of an average PC.
[QUOTE=Falchion;36272067]Could be because the features aren't there.[/QUOTE]
im not a console only player i play a good amount on pc and its just a fact no game ever was missing any features on consoles. but you gotta talk your ancient gaming platform of choice up i can understand that.
[QUOTE=sltungle;36283754]I can't believe this has so many dumbs given how insanely true this is. I mean, like you've all said, the 360 hardware is outdated as fuck now, and I wouldn't disagree on that, but watching things like the Halo 4 cutscenes and gameplay video from E3 it astounds me how good they can make games look on that thing still simply because the software is a lot more optimized now than it ever has been before.
It's good practice to make sure whatever you create uses the least amount of possible resources while maximising efficiency because it means you're not being lazy, saves your customers money in the long run by making sure they don't have to constantly upgrade, and means that when somebody does have a beast of a system running they can make the game look really, REALLY nice. Don't just rate him dumb because he said something positive about a fucking console - that kind of attitude is pretty fucking ridiculous.
Not to mention, as far as I'm concerned games like GTA IV, Halo Reach and Crysis 2 all look perfectly fine graphically to me - I don't need photorealism to enjoy a game, I'd rather it looked decent and had an interesting story, with well developed characters and writing instead of looking abso-fucking-lutely beautiful but with next to no story or character development.[/QUOTE]
No. The thing is that low system requirements for new gaming technology is a given. They want them to be used on mobile phones and such. It has nothing to do with consoles. Consoles halt the technology that will actually be used since developers generally make games for the consoles and then they port that game over to the PC. They hardly ever make a game for console and PC.
What consoles do is make developers make games FOR THAT SPECIFIC SET OF HARDWARE the consoles have, optimizing the shit out of the code and way things handles, for that hardware. This does not bring any benefits for anyone or anything except those specific consoles. When this is brought over to the PC all the optimization is completely redundant because that hardware is not used on the PC's and as such it's completely fucked up in the ass and you have to play the game of chance and hope your hardware works with the game.
Saints Row 2 is a good example of what console optimization does when it's ported straight to the PC. Years old hardware can manage to play the game at max smoothly. New super hardcore hardware may not be able to play the game, at all. A different combination of cpu and gpu (as in, two people have the same gpu but different cpu and vica versa) can be enough to make the game unplayable for one and fully playable for the other.
[QUOTE=dgg;36284303]No. The thing is that low system requirements for new gaming technology is a given. They want them to be used on mobile phones and such. It has nothing to do with consoles. [u][b]Consoles halt the technology that will actually be used since developers generally make games for the consoles and then they port that game over to the PC.[/b][/u] They hardly ever make a game for console and PC.
What consoles do is make developers make games FOR THAT SPECIFIC SET OF HARDWARE the consoles have, optimizing the shit out of the code and way things handles, for that hardware. This does not bring any benefits for anyone or anything except those specific consoles. When this is brought over to the PC all the optimization is completely redundant because that hardware is not used on the PC's and as such it's completely fucked up in the ass and you have to play the game of chance and hope your hardware works with the game.
[u][b]Saints Row 2 is a good example of what console optimization does when it's ported straight to the PC.[/b][/u] Years old hardware can manage to play the game at max smoothly. New super hardcore hardware may not be able to play the game, at all. A different combination of cpu and gpu (as in, two people have the same gpu but different cpu and vica versa) can be enough to make the game unplayable for one and fully playable for the other.[/QUOTE]
There are still as tons of game being released solely on the pc. Perhaps not some popular games, but most of my games are pc exclusive. Saying that there are only ports is just statistically wrong. I admit that there are more ports than back in the day. Still there is a shitton of games that are only on pc or get released first on pc.
Besides Saints Row 2 is really one example where the port is utter shite and I think that's due to the developpers being fucking lazy. Besides Saints Row has always been an Xbox exclusive. The devs are not that familiar with porting it to pc. You cannot simply generalize that.
I think it's the choice of the developpers making a good port, it is in their hands. There are really good ports out there, for instance Max Payne 3, Assassins Creed or Binary Domain. Holding back "innovation" in terms of visuals is shit. Developpers also try to make visually impressive games on consoles, not solely on pcs.
Finally, are you really that familiar with ports, optimizations of engines and such?
[QUOTE=acds;36256910]The problem with this comparison is, resolution is downplayed. What should be done to properly compare is take a PC screenshot at 1920x1080, and stretch the 360 one from it's original resolution to 1920x1080. Before you say it's unfair, when you are actually playing the games they all are stretched over the same 20"/40"/whatever surface, what happens when images are so small is that the difference in resolution is less visible (stretch them over a 30" screen and you'll see).
Hence why the comparison screenshots rarely capture the horrid blurryness (most) console games have.[/QUOTE]
Tvs upscale
[QUOTE=_Axel;36284078]Yeah, shame this astounding optimization doesn't carry over to PC in most cases. GTAIV for instance, was pretty awfully ported. It's great to have good optimization and all, as like you said it's a great way of having technically advanced games without having to use top tier hardware, but there are limitations to optimization, and it's just sad to see console-centric developers just cater to those limits instead of exploiting the greater potential of an average PC.[/QUOTE]
GTA4 was so horrible, I played it on xbox and pc. It was on both plattforms not really optimized, there were some really heavy fps drops during carchases or loading. Wish they could have done a better job at optimizing.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36284365]There are still as tons of game being released solely on the pc. Perhaps not some popular games, but most of my games are pc exclusive. Saying that there are only ports is just statistically wrong. I admit that there are more ports than back in the day. Still there is a shitton of games that are only on pc or get released first on pc.
Besides Saints Row 2 is really one example where the port is utter shite and I think that's due to the developpers being fucking lazy. Besides Saints Row has always been an Xbox exclusive. The devs are not that familiar with porting it to pc. You cannot simply generalize that.
I think it's the choice of the developpers making a good port, it is in their hands. There are really good ports out there, for instance Max Payne 3, Assassins Creed or Binary Domain. Holding back "innovation" in terms of visuals is shit. Developpers also try to make visually impressive games on consoles, not solely on pcs.
Finally, are you really that familiar with ports, optimizations of engines and such?[/QUOTE]
Talk about bad reading skills. I said [B]GENERALLY[/B] make games for the consoles. How in the world wide is that saying "there are only ports"? Most developers cater to the console market because that's where most of the money is.
They outsourced the port. The developers of Saints Row didn't port Saints Row 2. Also Saints Row 2 is a prime example, that's why I brought it up. I also don't see where I generalized anything, I said that's one of the problems plain ports causes.
Uh, well duh fucking duh, if you read my post that's kinda obvious. I said the developers usually focus on making a game for the consoles and then port it to the PC more or less as is, how is that not implying it's the developers fault? The problem is that developers try to make visually impressive games on consoles and then they've spent so much time and money getting everything to work and run well on the console that they just make a standard port to the PC, hopefully giving us options to change the graphics to some extent.
Probably just as much as you are, if not more.
[QUOTE=LEETNOOB;36260790][img_thumb]http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af150/The_FalconO6/CurrentLogicalPCBuyingGuide/Guide.png[/img_thumb]
All the knowledge you need when building a gaming PC. Click to enlarge.[/QUOTE]
Did that guide just completely omit the fact that Linux (and OSX) really isn't good at all for a gaming machine? Not really a good guide for someone new when they end up with a 1500$ PC that can't play most games, is it?
[QUOTE=dgg;36284467]Talk about bad reading skills. I said [B]GENERALLY[/B] make games for the consoles. How in the world wide is that saying "there are only ports"? Most developers cater to the console market because that's where most of the money is.
They outsourced the port. The developers of Saints Row didn't port Saints Row 2. Also Saints Row 2 is a prime example, that's why I brought it up. I also don't see where I generalized anything, I said that's one of the problems plain ports causes.
Uh, well duh fucking duh, if you read my post that's kinda obvious. I said the developers usually focus on making a game for the consoles and then port it to the PC more or less as is, how is that not implying it's the developers fault? The problem is that developers try to make visually impressive games on consoles and then they've spent so much time and money getting everything to work and run well on the console that they just make a standard port to the PC, hopefully giving us options to change the graphics to some extent.
Probably just as much as you are, if not more.[/QUOTE]
Talk about ignorance.
By reading your post it looks like most games are only ports, sorry when I misinterpretationed that. Because there are still a tons of pc only developpers. The console market is more lucrative, there is really a trend towards consoles on the market today. But the pc market is not being neglected, sometimes you have those exclusives or bad ports yes. But not always. Saints Row 2 is really a prime example when it comes to this, still those who are responsible for the port screwed up. Not exactly the fault of consoles. Yes, you could argue that if there weren't any consoles, you wouldn't have this issue. But that might go to far.
How exactly do you know that devs spent enourmous amounts of time on optimizing games for consoles, I have never read that anywhere. Look for instance at Max Payne 3, it had a good port and was nearly simultaniously released for all the plattforms. The whole thing is that the developpement process is really intransparent to us, we cannot simply say, they need a shitton of time optimizing a game. There are a lot of variables that come into play when developping a game.
I just want to defend that consoles are not the main cause for technological advances that are being held back. Because every game that was released so far on pc was always superior to the console version in terms of graphics. I do not want to insult anybody, just make some points. Sorry if I might have misread your post.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.