EA Executive Believes Xbox 360 Is "Maxed Out" [Archive]

darth los

09-Jun-2009, 08:37 PM

I've actually always found the Playstations to be "rather cool", but came nowhere near the amount of fun you could have with a SNES. And not until 360 came along did I feel the same amount of joy gaming on a console as I did when I was younger. The Playstations? They're overrated! And the N64 wasn't that great either, actually. I liked Doom 64. But I always like my Doom, heh.

Perhaps some of that has to with with the nostalgia associated with virtually anything from our youths.

Do you have any idea the amount of crap I've downloaded via x box live such as galaga or frogger. At first I was like "wow, yeah i remember those games. They're kick ass. I'll download them, cancer will be cured and everything will be great!!"

That's until I actually played them. It felt like I took 10 Dollars, wiped my ass with it and then flushed it down the terlet. :annoyed:

What a gyp.

:cool:

EvilNed

09-Jun-2009, 08:49 PM

darth los

09-Jun-2009, 08:53 PM

Dude, don't tell me. I got ahold of a Mega Man X the other day and that game STILL rules! I agree with you on many things. The NES doesn't hold, it's kinda dull. The Playstation as well. But SNES? No way, that is pure joy.

Dude, we all know the snes was genesis' bitch!!.

I smell a pole question guys!! :hyper:

:cool:

EvilNed

09-Jun-2009, 08:57 PM

I haven't played the Genesis in 15 years or more so I can't give an honest opinion on that.

I smell an emulator download...

krakenslayer

09-Jun-2009, 09:13 PM

What? Uh, what? XBox360 is the (second) greatest console ever. It has all the right stuff and it's a SNES for a new generation.

That said, it's time for a new box, isnt' it?

Dear god, it's really not. Each successive console generation is over quicker than the last, it seems like about five minutes since the Xbox360 came out, and yet they're soon gonna make all that obsolete and force us to cough up again. Fuck that. They cannot maintain this trend. I worked for a major games retailer until earlier this year, and I'm sick of seeing bereaved looking parents having their wallets raped by their ungrateful kids every Christmas and birthday, buying the latest replacement to the be-all-end-all console they'd just spend hundreds of pounds on just a year previously. Not to mention the dour-faced grown-up gamers who line up like sheep to hand over their cash every time a new console is released - their would-be excitement at trying out their new toy tempered by the unspoken knowledge that they are once again being fleeced and the fear that they might not be able to pay their rent after shelling out £500 for something that is gonna cost a fifth of that two years down the line (by which point it will be time to pay up all over again).

Fuck it all - go out and spend £150 on a new graphics card for your PC instead, which will almost certainly allow a decent rig to mop the floor with any console on the market for the next few years.

capncnut

09-Jun-2009, 11:22 PM

1.) NES
2.) SNES
3.) GENESIS
4.) N64
5.) PSX
6.) PS2
1.) ZX Spectrum
2.) Atari 2600
3.) Genesis/Megadrive
4.) Colecovision
5.) PSX

:cool:

CooperWasRight

10-Jun-2009, 03:27 AM

Dear god, it's really not. Each successive console generation is over quicker than the last, it seems like about five minutes since the Xbox360 came out, and yet they're soon gonna make all that obsolete and force us to cough up again. Fuck that. They cannot maintain this trend. I worked for a major games retailer until earlier this year, and I'm sick of seeing bereaved looking parents having their wallets raped by their ungrateful kids every Christmas and birthday, buying the latest replacement to the be-all-end-all console they'd just spend hundreds of pounds on just a year previously. Not to mention the dour-faced grown-up gamers who line up like sheep to hand over their cash every time a new console is released - their would-be excitement at trying out their new toy tempered by the unspoken knowledge that they are once again being fleeced and the fear that they might not be able to pay their rent after shelling out £500 for something that is gonna cost a fifth of that two years down the line (by which point it will be time to pay up all over again).

Fuck it all - go out and spend £150 on a new graphics card for your PC instead, which will almost certainly allow a decent rig to mop the floor with any console on the market for the next few years.

This topic has been hashed abit in the WiiHd thread...It is just simply not accurate...5 years is pretty much the averaged console life span. And frankly on the exponential curve we are on technologically it is reasonable to assume the life span on console should actually become shorter. And as stated before console are largely driving the market and gaming tech in general...and when you look at the average gaming review scores the console market dominate pc gaming not to mention you have a much wider selection. I will take my 73" running 1080p gaming with a much accessible community. Get comfortable with the already long term norm of console gen last 5-7 years.

krakenslayer

10-Jun-2009, 08:58 AM

This topic has been hashed abit in the WiiHd thread...It is just simply not accurate...5 years is pretty much the averaged console life span. And frankly on the exponential curve we are on technologically it is reasonable to assume the life span on console should actually become shorter. And as stated before console are largely driving the market and gaming tech in general...and when you look at the average gaming review scores the console market dominate pc gaming not to mention you have a much wider selection. I will take my 73" running 1080p gaming with a much accessible community. Get comfortable with the already long term norm of console gen last 5-7 years.

You've not really said anything to change my mind on the subject other than to list all the points that I have a problem with and tell me to get used to them. Just because the issues are there don't mean I have to like them. The biggest problem with consoles is the inability to upgrade, which works in the manufacturers favour in forcing consumers to stump up hundreds every time they want to take a step up. The fact that console gaming is beating PC gaming in sales is just proof that the are succeeding in their ripoff.

And to say that consoles are at the forefront of gaming tech isn't accurate. Games like Crisis on the PC - released 2 years ago - are still yet to be equalled by consoles.

Danny

10-Jun-2009, 09:21 AM

You've not really said anything to change my mind on the subject other than to list all the points that I have a problem with and tell me to get used to them. Just because the issues are there don't mean I have to like them. The biggest problem with consoles is the inability to upgrade, which works in the manufacturers favour in forcing consumers to stump up hundreds every time they want to take a step up. The fact that console gaming is beating PC gaming in sales is just proof that the are succeeding in their ripoff.

And to say that consoles are at the forefront of gaming tech isn't accurate. Games like Crisis on the PC - released 2 years ago - are still yet to be equalled by consoles.

see the whole "you cant upgrade" deal seems counterproductive to the 5 year lifespan argument, if there is no upgrades, then what is the xbox 360?, its an upgrade in different terms, but an upgrade nonetheless.
And what others have said is true, i think scientists said by 2015 we will be accumulating more information than we have known in our entire species existence every few minutes, right now its at a few weeks, 10 years ago it was a few decades,, a century ago it was a millenia. so in turn the same must account for the technology used in those process', hell go back 8 years and look at seaman on the dreamcast, and now that rough tech demo of milo on the 360, its always the same thing, interfacing with a virtual world to take part in a story or competition of some sort, its just advancing the tech behind it faster as time progresses, and eventually it will be almost exponential, so yeah you can hate it, but give it a few years and you'll be shocked to realize you become one of those "it werent like this in my day" foggey's.

happens to all of us eventually.

krakenslayer

10-Jun-2009, 11:04 AM

see the whole "you cant upgrade" deal seems counterproductive to the 5 year lifespan argument, if there is no upgrades, then what is the xbox 360?, its an upgrade in different terms, but an upgrade nonetheless.
And what others have said is true, i think scientists said by 2015 we will be accumulating more information than we have known in our entire species existence every few minutes, right now its at a few weeks, 10 years ago it was a few decades,, a century ago it was a millenia. so in turn the same must account for the technology used in those process', hell go back 8 years and look at seaman on the dreamcast, and now that rough tech demo of milo on the 360, its always the same thing, interfacing with a virtual world to take part in a story or competition of some sort, its just advancing the tech behind it faster as time progresses, and eventually it will be almost exponential, so yeah you can hate it, but give it a few years and you'll be shocked to realize you become one of those "it werent like this in my day" foggey's.

happens to all of us eventually.

The Xbox360 is not an upgrade to the Xbox, it's an entirely new console. If I talk upgrades I'm talking about plugging in new, relatively inexpensive components into an existing machine to make it more powerful. I've not bought a new PC in six or seven years, yet I can run any brand new game at high settings better than a modern console, that's because as each component (graphics card, memory, processor, motherboard) neared the end of its useful life, I was able to cheaply replace it with a more modern, powerful one as I went along. At no one point did I shell out more than £120, and in total I've probably spent less than the launch day price of one new console. Sony and Microsoft could do something like that, but instead the make their consoles sealed units which cannot and never will be upgraded, just so they can fuck you in the bank account some more.

My hatred of the console manufacturers stems from my time working in the games dept at Zavvi. You wouldn't believe how fucking MISERABLE people always look when buying a new console. It's really heartbreaking, you think they'd be excited, but they all look so depressed. It's almost like someone's FORCING them to buy one at gunpoint. :P

capncnut

10-Jun-2009, 02:04 PM

My hatred of the console manufacturers stems from my time working in the games dept at Zavvi. You wouldn't believe how fucking MISERABLE people always look when buying a new console. It's really heartbreaking, you think they'd be excited, but they all look so depressed. It's almost like someone's FORCING them to buy one at gunpoint. :P
Well that must be indicative of the people who live in your area because everyone I see shopping in GameStation are lit up like Christmas trees - even the parents. In fact, I have seen people (children and adults alike) engaged in chirpy conversation with the bloke/girl at the till for hours.

krakenslayer

10-Jun-2009, 04:07 PM

Well that must be indicative of the people who live in your area because everyone I see shopping in GameStation are lit up like Christmas trees - even the parents. In fact, I have seen people (children and adults alike) engaged in chirpy conversation with the bloke/girl at the till for hours.

Hmm, quite possibly. Glasgow is full of miserable bastards. My original point, though, is that I'm not against the advances in technology, I'm against the way a huge purchase is unnecessarily foisted on gamers every five years when there are alternatives (albeit not ones that will make more money for the hardware manufacturers).

Hardware is advancing faster and faster, the generations between consoles are getting slimmer (NES had a 15 year lifespan, Mega Drive had about 11, Playstation 2 is soldering on with about 9, Xbox only had about five years...), yet the ways in which consoles are being marketed and manufactured are not evolving alongside. It's still a "your shit is old, pay up motherfuckers" attitude, but if anything the cost, generation on generation is going up, so something's gotta change - either they will have to make consoles with component upgradeability in mind, or they will have to cut costs, or simply extend the lifespan of the console for as long as they can. Because if it gets to the point where a new one is coming out every two years or so, and it's still five hundred a pop at launch day, there's no way consumers (and developers for that matter) are gonna keep up.

Something's gotta give.

darth los

10-Jun-2009, 05:45 PM

[QUOTE=hellsing;190018] hell go back 8 years and look at seaman on the dreamcast[QUOTE]

O.K. I'm not even going to ask how seamen got on your dreamcast but I have a couple of theories.

Boom, Boom, Cha!! :sneaky:

:cool:

Danny

10-Jun-2009, 05:52 PM

CooperWasRight

11-Jun-2009, 02:45 AM

Hmm, quite possibly. Glasgow is full of miserable bastards. My original point, though, is that I'm not against the advances in technology, I'm against the way a huge purchase is unnecessarily foisted on gamers every five years when there are alternatives (albeit not ones that will make more money for the hardware manufacturers).

Hardware is advancing faster and faster, the generations between consoles are getting slimmer (NES had a 15 year lifespan, Mega Drive had about 11, Playstation 2 is soldering on with about 9, Xbox only had about five years...), yet the ways in which consoles are being marketed and manufactured are not evolving alongside. It's still a "your shit is old, pay up motherfuckers" attitude, but if anything the cost, generation on generation is going up, so something's gotta change - either they will have to make consoles with component upgradeability in mind, or they will have to cut costs, or simply extend the lifespan of the console for as long as they can. Because if it gets to the point where a new one is coming out every two years or so, and it's still five hundred a pop at launch day, there's no way consumers (and developers for that matter) are gonna keep up.

Something's gotta give.

Your math is missing something... This is not the era of the ps2.... Because a system still sells games is not how one determines what gen we are at...the ps2's era is not 9 years in length. Also you are not getting a cutting edge video card for 300 dollars...And frankly if you are honest about your current real world rig and your not lying, chances are your setup is not matching a ps3 or 360... People get hung up on the aspect the a console is limited and a pc gives an option to upgrade but a slim minority of consumers actually have a cutting edge set up. Kind of like how some people will vote against a tax increase on the wealthy on the off chance in some dream land were they suddenly become rich.If you wanna stay up to date your talking closer to a 1000 bucks every few yours to keep a up to date pc. And as for crysis... Yeah it looks nice there are now a few games eclipsing crysis on the pc... And Frankly when you look at games like Killzone 2 the whole my pc dick is bigger then you console argument falls flat. like it or not it console do push the tech. And when I was talking ratings I meant not sales because that goes without saying... Im talking review scores...Quality of gaming.

Your math is so far off the marker when you are talking generation spans...

A refresher on console history:

NES 1985
SNES 1990
N64 1996
Gamecube 2001
Wii 2006

SEGA 1986
GENESIS 1989
SATURN 1995
DREAMCAST 1999

PLAYSTATION 1994
PS2 2000
PS3 2006

XBOX 2001
XBOX 360 2005

And the console market tried upgrade...32x,sega cd jaguar expander and so on and so fourth..The market spoke.. And you know what it said...NO. People want shiny new things.

capncnut

11-Jun-2009, 03:39 AM

Cockiness aside (:D), that was actually quite well said. The whole reason why I play consoles exclusively is because the maintenance and constant upgrading of a PC (which always seems to need a complete reformat every two years to boot) is just too damn expensive. Plus, I really don't like playing games with a keyboard and a mouse - I've been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and have always felt more comfortable with a joystick/joypad.

And yeah, the PS2 was on it's last knockings in 2007. As for the Megadrive/Genesis, it was getting it's arse battered by the PSX in 1996-97, which would put it's span around seven years, same as the PS2. What a lot of people forget that by this November, the 360 will be four years old so by 2012 (the touted year for the Xbox3/540), it will pretty much be a dinosaur itself.

Wii 2001
Gamecube?

hell go back 8 years and look at seaman on the dreamcast
O.K. I'm not even going to ask how seamen got on your dreamcast but I have a couple of theories.
My Dreamcast saw it's fair share of semen, lemme tell you.

In regards to the original post, I can see how the 360 might be 'all maxed out' but I'm sure it still has a few surprises up it's sleeve. Plus there are other ways of squeezing a few extra drops of power out of the beast.

krakenslayer

11-Jun-2009, 11:15 AM

Your math is missing something... This is not the era of the ps2.... Because a system still sells games is not how one determines what gen we are at...the ps2's era is not 9 years in length. Also you are not getting a cutting edge video card for 300 dollars...And frankly if you are honest about your current real world rig and your not lying, chances are your setup is not matching a ps3 or 360... People get hung up on the aspect the a console is limited and a pc gives an option to upgrade but a slim minority of consumers actually have a cutting edge set up. Kind of like how some people will vote against a tax increase on the wealthy on the off chance in some dream land were they suddenly become rich.If you wanna stay up to date your talking closer to a 1000 bucks every few yours to keep a up to date pc. And as for crysis... Yeah it looks nice there are now a few games eclipsing crysis on the pc... And Frankly when you look at games like Killzone 2 the whole my pc dick is bigger then you console argument falls flat. like it or not it console do push the tech. And when I was talking ratings I meant not sales because that goes without saying... Im talking review scores...Quality of gaming.

Your math is so far off the marker when you are talking generation spans...

A refresher on console history:

NES 1985
SNES 1990
N64 1996
Wii 2001

SEGA 1986
GENESIS 1989
SATURN 1995
DREAMCAST 1999

PLAYSTATION 1994
PS2 2000
PS3 2006

XBOX 2001
XBOX 360 2005

And the console market tried upgrade...32x,sega cd jaguar expander and so on and so fourth..The market spoke.. And you know what it said...NO. People want shiny new things.

Okay so this is not PS2's era, it's age was over in 2006 which further illustrates my point of the generations getting slimmer and slimmer.

FYI, here is a list of all the upgrades I've bought for my PC:

1GB 4870 ATI graphics adapter (£140)
3GB RAM (approx. £80 in total)
Athlon x2 6000 (least up to date component, still copes fine, £60)
New motherboard (£45)

That's £325 spread out over about five years, the PS3 was over £400 a pop when it first came out. It's not a cutting edge PC, but the games I've played on both PS3 and PC (Fallout 3, Burnout Paradise, Oblivion, at least) I can run them at full settings - with higher detail than PS3 - at apparently the same framerates. Moreover, even if my PC was relatively obsolescent, I'd still be able to run the same games at reduced detail.

The 32x etc. were poor excuses for upgrades. They tried to tack extra usability onto an underpowered machine. You misunderstand me, I'm talking about the actual ability to replace processors and GPU, either yourself or done at a service centre, and I'm not talking about ditching consoles altogether, I'm talking about replacing the burn and replace strategy with a gradually evolving PC style of upgrade. They could make upgrading incredibly easy and cheap if they wanted to, but the don't want to.

CooperWasRight

11-Jun-2009, 10:56 PM

Okay so this is not PS2's era, it's age was over in 2006 which further illustrates my point of the generations getting slimmer and slimmer.

FYI, here is a list of all the upgrades I've bought for my PC:

1GB 4870 ATI graphics adapter (£140)
3GB RAM (approx. £80 in total)
Athlon x2 6000 (least up to date component, still copes fine, £60)
New motherboard (£45)

That's £325 spread out over about five years, the PS3 was over £400 a pop when it first came out. It's not a cutting edge PC, but the games I've played on both PS3 and PC (Fallout 3, Burnout Paradise, Oblivion, at least) I can run them at full settings - with higher detail than PS3 - at apparently the same framerates. Moreover, even if my PC was relatively obsolescent, I'd still be able to run the same games at reduced detail.

The 32x etc. were poor excuses for upgrades. They tried to tack extra usability onto an underpowered machine. You misunderstand me, I'm talking about the actual ability to replace processors and GPU, either yourself or done at a service centre, and I'm not talking about ditching consoles altogether, I'm talking about replacing the burn and replace strategy with a gradually evolving PC style of upgrade. They could make upgrading incredibly easy and cheap if they wanted to, but the don't want to.

The 32x took a 16bit system to a 32bit system...If that's not a processor upgrade I don't know what is????? And while your system you running is nice its not even remotely close to even a low end Alienware setup. I will take the Pepsi challenge any day my 360 or ps3 versus your rig anyday. Were is the pc Motionplus? or Natal... Nowhere.. The pc is in the larger picture is irrelevant one thing pc fans seem to miss is the overwhelming benefit of knowing the exact specs on the system you building a game for...It is invaluable.

MikePizzoff

12-Jun-2009, 12:39 AM

A refresher on console history:

NES 1985
SNES 1990
N64 1996
Wii 2001

Wii 2001 :confused:

CooperWasRight

12-Jun-2009, 12:57 AM

Wii 2001 :confused:

My bad...Gamecube 2001 Wii 2006 typo

krakenslayer

12-Jun-2009, 07:26 PM

The 32x took a 16bit system to a 32bit system...If that's not a processor upgrade I don't know what is????? And while your system you running is nice its not even remotely close to even a low end Alienware setup. I will take the Pepsi challenge any day my 360 or ps3 versus your rig anyday. Were is the pc Motionplus? or Natal... Nowhere.. The pc is in the larger picture is irrelevant one thing pc fans seem to miss is the overwhelming benefit of knowing the exact specs on the system you building a game for...It is invaluable.

Surely everyone knows the whole "bit wars" thing was a marketing gag, right? In the case of the 32x, it had a couple of 32 bit processors inside the add-on unit, but it was all interwoven with and bottlenecked through the existing, dated 16bit hardware of the Mega Drive itself. Once again, I'm not envisioning anything like that - I'm talking about being able to buy a new, faster video card for your Xbox, about developers releasing console games with scaleable graphics options so that owners of slightly older rigs can still run most of the same games, while those with money to burn can upgrade beyond the regular users for extra audio-visual bragging rights. I'm talking about gradual evolution of systems, without the generation cut-offs. Doesn't that sound like a fairer world? :D

And yes, I know my PC does not compare to an Alienware machine, I never said it was a top-end box, but most Alienware rigs are pretty much overkill for almost any game on the market these days anyway, unless you're actually going to need to run Crysis 2 on maxed-out settings at higher than 1080p resolutions, at a steady 80FPS. I don't need to do that and I'm not really bothered about whether or not it compares to other people's PCs, or about doing the whole "my dick is bigger thing" - I'm just posting those specs to show that you can upgrade to a respectable machine that will run any game at decent settings far cheaper than buying a new PC or console. However, I will disagree that your Xbox would outperform it, my brother has a 360 and we both own Fallout 3 on our respective machines - I can run the game at full settings which gives me a slightly better draw distance and graphical detail than his Xbox while maintaining a more stready framerate. I do agree that a lot of this varies from game to game, and upon how well optimised the game is to my specific hardware. But then again, there's a lot of back-and-forth variation in graphics between 360 and PS3, too.

I think calling the PC "irrelevant" is a bit much, really. Sure, each time a new console is released, it helps drive developers into pushing graphics further. But what happens between generations? Do graphical advances always stagnate at the limit of the most powerful games console? Nope. And what pushes the technology onward is the gradual advance of PC hardware, which constantly progresses at a steady pace in the meantime. Look at F.E.A.R. - developed initially for the PC and released before both the Xbox 360 and PS3 (and later ported to those systems from its initial PC platform) and its graphics that were light-years ahead of the then-current PS2 and original Xbox, and easily equalled most of what the 360 has to offer.

Exatreides

12-Jun-2009, 08:52 PM

Danny

12-Jun-2009, 09:00 PM

I would much rather spend the money for an xbox 360, and never have to worry about my system specs, worrying about DRM and constantly checking system specs and having to worry about upgrading.

While your PC may be able to play a few games upcoming on highest settings, it won't forever.

While my 360 can play every game you put in it on highest settings.

THAT is why consoles are made of win, i can buy, sell, hell even trade my games and not have a set amount of machines to play the disc on, some recent drm debacles like bioshock locking out the moment the program launched the first time was bullshit you simply dont deal with on a games console.

krakenslayer

12-Jun-2009, 09:30 PM

While your PC may be able to play a few games upcoming on highest settings, it won't forever.

While my 360 can play every game you put in it on highest settings.

Well... no, because any game you put in your 360 has already had its settings tweaked to fit with the specs of the system. See my Fallout 3 example above.

THAT is why consoles are made of win, i can buy, sell, hell even trade my games and not have a set amount of machines to play the disc on, some recent drm debacles like bioshock locking out the moment the program launched the first time was bullshit you simply dont deal with on a games console.

But with a PC, there is always a way around the problem. You can mess around with settings, install cracks, etc. If you have any kind of problem with a console game, you're screwed unless (if you're lucky) they release a patch.

But anyway, all of this is really secondary. I think you guys have all slightly missed the entire point of what I'm saying - I'm not saying PCs are inherently better than consoles, I'm simply suggesting that console manufacturers should stop churning out brand new consoles year on year and simply offer gradual upgrades to extend the life of each generation in order to save consumers money and offer them more freedom. PCs are actually irrelevant to my argument, except as a general example of one way this can be done.

Craig

13-Jun-2009, 01:42 PM

in order to save consumers money and offer them more freedom.
I don't think those phrases are in any corporation's vocabulary :lol:

Danny

13-Jun-2009, 04:12 PM

But with a PC, there is always a way around the problem.-

but you gotta admit, the fact it exists and needs to be worked around is not a point in pc gamings favor y'know?

Craig

13-Jun-2009, 10:23 PM

but you gotta admit, the fact it exists and needs to be worked around is not a point in pc gamings favor y'know?
Red ring of death?

Danny

13-Jun-2009, 10:36 PM

Red ring of death?

thats one console, every pc has the drm problems.

krakenslayer

13-Jun-2009, 10:57 PM

thats one console, every pc has the drm problems.

Can't say I ever have had any Data Rights Management problems, to be honest. Occasionally, what I will get is the odd crash or a graphical or sound glitch with a new game caused by a conflict with existing software or hardware, but you can always tinker your way around them, and that's the tradeoff you make for the flexibility of being able to multi-task and select different in-game graphics/sound options. Console games have glitches too (the Fallout 3 DLC has been bad for this, and I know my bro has had some big problems with different copies of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2), only on a console there is no workaround.

Just to say though, none of what I'm saying now is connected with or relevant to my original point about being able to upgrade consoles.

CooperWasRight

15-Jun-2009, 11:14 PM

Can't say I ever have had any Data Rights Management problems, to be honest. Occasionally, what I will get is the odd crash or a graphical or sound glitch with a new game caused by a conflict with existing software or hardware, but you can always tinker your way around them, and that's the tradeoff you make for the flexibility of being able to multi-task and select different in-game graphics/sound options. Console games have glitches too (the Fallout 3 DLC has been bad for this, and I know my bro has had some big problems with different copies of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2), only on a console there is no workaround.

Just to say though, none of what I'm saying now is connected with or relevant to my original point about being able to upgrade consoles.

When you speak of fallout pc vs. console I must ask you do you have a 1080p capable tv... Only you know the answer to that but this is a massive difference between standard and hd on a console. I have seen both console and pc on my 73" and I can honestly say I prefer my console version... Now crysis is another story...Built exclusively for pc and looks nicer then fallout.. However Killzone 2 looks better the crysis in many respect but is is not a large of a game so they can focus on more detail. Sandboxish games are at least for the foreseeable future going to consistently loose to linear games in the graphics department.

krakenslayer

15-Jun-2009, 11:28 PM

When you speak of fallout pc vs. console I must ask you do you have a 1080p capable tv... Only you know the answer to that but this is a massive difference between standard and hd on a console. I have seen both console and pc on my 73" and I can honestly say I prefer my console version... Now crysis is another story...Built exclusively for pc and looks nicer then fallout.. However Killzone 2 looks better the crysis in many respect but is is not a large of a game so they can focus on more detail. Sandboxish games are at least for the foreseeable future going to consistently loose to linear games in the graphics department.

I don't have a TV, I just play the games on my regular PC monitor, although I can run Fallout 3 just fine at 1920×1080 resolution (which is the same as full HD) even though I don't have the massive TV to get the best visual experience out of it.

And yes, you are right about sandbox games tending to be a little less cutting edge in the graphics department than linear ones. Linear games have smaller environments and tend to have shorter development times so the developers can concentrate on small details more.

Getting a little off-topic now but I gotta say, though, from a gameplay point of view I much prefer sandbox games. I know a lot of people prefer the "structure" of being told what to do, for me nothing beats just striding out into a landscape with no set goals, just to see where I end up and what happens.

DjfunkmasterG

16-Jun-2009, 01:51 PM

I can't even remember the last time I fired up my 360 for gaming, it sits collecting dust. My PS3 is in constant use for Blu-Ray playback, otherwise it too would collecting dust.

I am at heart a PC gamer. Can't beat the graphics of a PC game. However, my heart will always be for the 2600 (Atari).

I do own one of each gaming system, collectables in my opinion.

Have the

2600, 5200 and 7800
NES, SNES, N64, Game Cube and Wii
PS1, PS2, PS3
Sega, Genesis, Dreamcast

Most of my games are for my PS2, which my one PS3 cannot play (40gb model) my other PS3 (80gb) will play them, but I am a little too old for gaming, or I should say a little too busy.