Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Where the hell did all you people come from?
Comments
-
Alright. I'm very sorry I have to do this, but, well...
imp wrote...Of course I know what I'm talking about. The PC is more powerful than the upcoming Nintendo GameCube
I can't veryify whether this is true or not, because frankly, I have virtually no specs on the GameCube, except for a "6 - 12M tri/sec", with unspecified graphical effects, making the actual number virtually impossible to determine.
However, this,...AND the PSX2
...is just flat out wrong. There is just no way to misinterpret the PlayStation 2's technical abilities: It well and truly kicks the PC's ass (at the moment). It is capable of 60 - 80 M tris/sec (fully lit and transformed, with a single textural / lighting pass, I believe). Toshiba's Emotion Engine (the PSX2's CPU) has 10 FMAC (Floating-Point Multiply-Accumulators), each capable of a single 32-bit FMUL operation per cycle. It (the EE) also contains a 10-Channel DMAC (DMA controller) to manage the EE's internal 128-bit, 64-bit, and 16-bit busses. But that's not all! The EE also has two SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) vector transform units, capable of performing massive vector operations very quickly. One of these units (along with a FPU; see above, re: FMACs) runs in concert with a MIPS III CPU to provide physics, surface manipulation (for, say, facial expressions), artificial intelligence, and general housekeeping (the vector unit isn't really involved in this last part). The other vector unit is devoted to vertex transforms (moving the camera and, in some cases, meshes, around).
The capabilities of the Emotion Engine are simply incredible. Sony is building a very powerful graphical workstation using 64 Emotion Engines. What will it be able to do? Well, it'll be able to render frames from the Final Fantasy movie, with slightly reduced texture detail. In real time. If you've seen the trailer, you know how impressive that is.
PCs are just not capable of that level of power. The entire Playstation system is designed for media production, which is actually a blessing and a curse for developers: a blessing because it means the machine has insane amounts of power, a curse because it's very difficult to harness all that power.
In my opinion, Sony's singular greatest mistake (mistakes, actually) stem from memory. There isn't enough of it. While I personally believe in procedurally generating geometry, even the Playstation 2 isn't capable of generating the most intense geometry (we're talking about some seriously, seriously intricate constructions). The lack of cache gives programmers brainaches, but isn't necessarily a weakness. If I were Sony, I would have increased the amount of SPRAM, and cut down the access penalty, making it, effectually, fast CPU / GPU shared cache....and by the time the X-Box [which is, by the way powered ENTIRELY by PC technology] comes out, the PC'll be even better than that.
I understand that the X-Box having a nVidia chip (two, actually), an Intel CPU, and a Microsoft operating system make it seem like it'll be, essentially, a PC. It isn't, not by a long shot.
Note: I don't know as much about the X-Box architecture as I do about the PSX2. The tech talk I attended on the X-Box was somewhat enlightening, but it'll be a while before the architecture is accurately nailed down, and even then, the more intimate technical details will only go to Microsoft's partners, a group of which I am not a part (thankfully).
Having said that, this statement,If you disagree, think for a moment:
DirectX technologies: designed for the PC
Intel Processor: designed for the PC
Hard-Disk Drive: designed for the PC
n-Vidia 3D card: designed for the PC
3D Soundcard: designed for the PC
DVD-ROM: designed for the PC
Broadband/Modem/Ethernet ability: all designed for the PC
Is incorrect. I'll address these points one at a time.
Direct X
Direct X is the X-Box's weak point, IMO (along with Windows2K). I'm a pretty strong opponent of Microsoft, and DirectX, though, so I could be somewhat biased. Still, I believe that DirectX is a suffocatingly annoying API that can't compare to the mathematical simplicity of OpenGL. Fortunately, OpenGL is also offered, along with the option to forego an API entirely and code to the metal (like most consoles are programmed).
Intel Processor
The CPU will probably be a heavily modified version of one they use for the PC. It doesn't have to support a protected mode (everything runs in Win2K's Ring 0 - Kernel mode), but it does have to support a high-bandwidth shared memory architecture.
Hard-Disk Drive
Would you rather it not have one? It's good to have the ability to do things like save large games (Deus Ex savegames can grow to be 10 - 20 MB), and this way, games can be downloaded and / or patched.
nVidia 3D Card
nVidia is not making card; they don't make cards, they make chips. The nv2A chip for use in the X-Box will not be the same as their PC chip; it will be more powerfull than the nv25, but less powerful than the nv30 (yes, the PC will overtake the console shortly after its release, we're talking about the state of technology at the moment the console is released). The numbers nVidia is providing are astounding, 150 dual-textured polygons / sec, per-pixel dotproducts (dynamic multipass world lighting), programmable pixel and vertex pipelines, and a whole host of other niftyness.
3D Soundcard
Again, will not be a card. It'll be a chip, developed by nVidia, and integrated onto the system's North Bridge. This chip will have a PC counterpart (like the nv2A has the nv25), but the versions for the XB and for the PC will be different.
DVD-ROM
Saying the DVD-ROM is a PC-only thing is like faulting Sony and Sega for using CD-Roms (or very slight variations thereof) in their machines. The purpose of having a DVD-ROM player is obvious; you can play DVDs and games.
Broadband / Modem / Ethernet Ability
The Ethernet / Modem link will allow multiplayer and patch downloading, which is a Good Thing (tm), and having it doesn't in any way hurt system performance.
At present, each individual component of the X-Box is slated to be radically more powerful than its present-day PC counterpart; the fastest GeForce can proccess some 35 M polygons / sec. Compare that to 300 M polygons / sec (single-textured). Impressive jump? Yeah, I'd say so. Now, nVidia will shortly thereafter release a more powerful PC chip, but when it's released, and for some time later, the X-Box will be the fastest thing out there.
~~
Ignie Ferroque,
Ash. - "Non Facete Nobis Calcitrare Vestrvm Perinævm"0 -
Asuka wrote...Im not going to get involved with the PC/Consoles argument again, ive discussed it several million times before...
Ahh! But this time, it's different. We're debating clearly definable technical power, not having a "which is better" argument. Personally, I can't stand consoles, but that's just me....how can you say counter-strike is anything like pure DM? Its team-based, its realistic, there are so many differences! No automatic respawn. Everything about how the game is played is different.Doom clones can be good or bad. It depends on the quality. No one can deny Doom was a good game.The thing about Doom was that it wasnt as linear as half-life or other such games. The levels were puzzling, far better thought out than any quake levels.Searching for red key cards was fun, goddammit.Theres a new doom style game which i cant remember the name of coming out, but it is immediately reminding of doom... down to the power-ups. The most doom-esque thing about it though, is something a lot of later games lost in their search for superior AI... the AI is dead simple... enemy sees you, enemy attacks you, but the cool thing is you can have hundreds of enemies attacking you at once...It reminds me sooo much of Doom 2.
iD is remaking Doom. Yay. No question mark. If they do a good job of it, itll be fu<king cool.Thief, System Shock 2 and Deus Ex dont defy categorisation - they are First Person RPGs.
* ahem *
Thief is not an RPG. Deus Ex *could* be considered one in the loosest sense of the word, but its skill system is ultimately a bit too simple for a pure RPG. Don't get me wrong, I actually prefer this balance of player / character skill, but it's not quite an RPG. What is it? LGS called Thief a FPS - First Person Sneaker. Deus Ex can kinda fit into that category, too, if you play it in that manner...They are all incredible though, agreed. Theyre not as linear as average FPSs and they involve character development and storyline. Deus Ex multiplayer? Sounds like fun, but again, only if its done right.And FYI Ashvin, the 'killer' engine of Deus Ex is based on Unreals engine. But im sure you knew that.Real physics in a dynamic world? All these games have real physics engines now.
Ok, do something for me:
1) Go into Deus Ex.
2) Pick up a body.
3) Walk over to a wall and stand so you're facing it
4) Drop the body.
5) Observe the "real physics"
If bodies do that where you live, I'd like to know about it; someone's about to get the Correspondence Paradox from hell.
No game out there has an even remotely correct physics engine. Halo looks like it has a powerful physics engine, but even there, there are occasional clipping errors. Still, if it's done right, Halo could be a massive improvement over the existing engines. Most of the "physics" you see in current games is all done with scripted events. All environment interactivity (or very nearly all of it) is done with scripted events. Also, no game currently in existence has dynamic world architecture. The reason for all of this is that, frankly, it's hard to implement a dynamic visibility tree (necessary for truly dynamic world architecture, and it's hard (or, more accurately, computationally expensive) to build a physics engine that does even little things like assuming that forces are applied anywhere but the center of mass. Eventually, we will overcome these issues. Trust me when I say that day is not yet here.iD have not lost their touch. They have good days and bad days. I hated Quake 1. I finished Q2 single player when it was first released, and i have to say i enjoyed it. And i played multi-player for years. It was really good fun.Q3 is also damn good. Its not realistic or anything, but its fast and its fun. Keep playing UT, Ashvin, and you'll find that the novelty does wear off.
Alternately, you could make the quantum leap of logic and consider the possibility that some people really, genuinely, find Unreal Tournament to be a fun game with a solid gameplay design (and some killer mods)....And its nicer graphically, so i dont know where you got that from...
The other part of the Unreal engine I like is the water and fire effects; though Quake 3 does have a more advanced system for similar effects (Shaders), I still haven't seen anything as good looking as Unreal's water (scratch that, Halo's water is better, but Halo hasn't been released yet)...Im so tempted to start on the consoles argument, but i wont.FF7 rocks. Defnitely better than FF8. The X-Box looks decent. The PSX2 is also decent. However, there is one thing which is guaranteed to make or break any console marketed - the third-party support. Thats where PlayStation beat Saturn. That is where the main competition lies, not in the hardware, which ultimately will be quite similar for consoles produced in the same time period.
~~
Ignie Ferroque,
Ash. - "Non Facete Nobis Calcitrare Vestrvm Perinævm"
0 -
G'Kar has raised some interesting points, which I feel I should address.
On his corrections on my points on the X-Box's technologies, he should note the following:
He's right that OpenGL support will be included, but developers realise that DirectX is easier to program for, and also covers a broader area than OpenGL
The processor currently in development is a Pentium III with minor modifications, although there are plans to change this ti Pentium 4 with minor modifications.
There will be a graphics card and sound card, both based on existing PC technology. A processor on its own would make no sense. The cards will not be seperate to the system board of the machine but integrated into it, but they are still there.
I never said that the DVD-ROM was a bad idea, but tell me: wasn't it developed for the PC (then adapted for the Mac and PSX2)?
Likewise I never said the Broadband/Modem/Ethernet ability was bad, although Microsoft's .net and NGWS strategies are a more than a little concerning aren't they?
The polygon performance is already available for the PC, if you're willing to pay for it.
On the points you made on the PlayStation 2, they are admittedly good specs, but the PC can excel them. I'm sure if you're a regular reader of PCG, PCP and PCF you'll no doubt have seen the whitespace being devoted the ongoing argument of PCs versus consoles. The truth is: PCs win. Consoles are simply becoming more like the PC, but a little behind on the specs. The Mac too. To be honest I don't know much about the G5 but from the specs that I have heard its just the next step of evolution for the Mac, and that step is once again closer to the PC. Somebody got it right, a lot of people made some big mistakes. IBM were right, and the console companies were wrong - as people do, the console companies both old and new, are trying to put right what they put wrong.
Yes, System Shock was superior to Doom, and Marathon inferior.
Agreed that iD (not Id, or ID) do need to learn a bit about storytelling, atmosphere etc. Maybe a few lessons from Valve are in order?
Thief is not an RPG in the general sense, but for all intents and purposes it can be and is treated as an RPG in the games industry. Deus Ex is an RPG, but its also been mixed with about 50% of all the other genres, so there is no single genre under which it can be described.
No game has an even remotely correct physics engine? Agreed. But then, the definitions and laws of physics change every day anyway.
And actually, I'm correcting you based on the Sony and Microsoft whitepapers. Are you sure that you have the official information because it certainly disagrees with the information they've sent me.
iMP
Ready and willing to fight more on consoles once he's had some sleep.0 -
If I remember correctly, the physics engine in Blood was pretty good (if limited to very linear uses). Also, isn't that upcoming game based around the Cthulu Mythos supposed to have a near perfect physics engine, that's FULLY manipulative. Or so I've been told.
Oh, is anyone here interested in the law of quantum uncertainty? It's kinda fun.
On a final subject change, has anyone else here heard about the findings that prove that electrons act differently, depending on whether they're watched or not? It's very strange and scary and interesting and stuff.
Sven0 -
It is interesting. I'm not sure if it was Blood or Blood II that had the more realistic physics engine, haven't played either in a long time.
I'm currently going through a period of playing non-graphical games. One of them is a DOS game from 1982, another is a VisualBasic game from 1998. All very good, none of them involve anything more fancy than a few coloured oversized pixels. So you see, a game doesn't have to look good to be a good game. What I'm basically trying to say is, all of ye with 386s running Windows 3.x, you can still play some of the best games EVER.
iMP0 -
Advertisement
-
imp wrote...On his corrections on my points on the X-Box's technologies, he should note the following:
He's right that OpenGL support will be included, but developers realise that DirectX is easier to program for, and also covers a broader area than OpenGL.
DirectX's purported superioriority to OpenGL is a piece of Microsoft propoganda that has been repeated enough for it to apparantly become truth. It isn't. Only now, in revision seven, is Direct 3D beginning to equal OpenGL in terms of capability. Even now, nVidia's OpenGL extensions (GL_NV_vertex_array_range, GL_NV_fence, GL_NV_light_max_exponent, GL_NV_register_combiners, GL_NV_fog_distance, GL_NV_texgen_emboss, GL_NV_blend_square, GL_NV_texture_env_combine4, and a few others) give nVidia's OpenGL implementation more power than Direct3D. On the X-Box, though, both APIs will probably be equal in power.
If you are referring to things like DirectSound and DirectMusic (and -Lord help us- DirectPlay), then stop. Those are entirely seperate from the D3D graphics API, and using them as evidence of DirectX's superiority over OpenGL is just plain silly.The processor currently in development is a Pentium III with minor modifications, although there are plans to change this ti Pentium 4 with minor modifications.There will be a graphics card and sound card, both based on existing PC technology. A processor on its own would make no sense. The cards will not be seperate to the system board of the machine but integrated into it, but they are still there.I never said that the DVD-ROM was a bad idea, but tell me: wasn't it developed for the PC (then adapted for the Mac and PSX2)?Likewise I never said the Broadband/Modem/Ethernet ability was bad, although Microsoft's .net and NGWS strategies are a more than a little concerning aren't they?The polygon performance is already available for the PC, if you're willing to pay for it.
Even the Intergraph Wildfire systems don't have a polygon throughput that high, and even then, their fill rates are fairly pathetic. Likewise for SGI's Visual Workstation line; it's fast, but not that fast.
For reference, the fastest chip presently available is the GeForce 2 Ultra, with a polygon throughput of approximately 35M poly/sec. Will nVidia release a chip that exceeds the Playstation 2's power? Yes. Have they, as of today (7 / 10 / 00)? No. Has anyone else? Unless you know of someone I don't, then nope...On the points you made on the PlayStation 2, they are admittedly good specs, but the PC can excel them.
The other thing holding back PC games is the fact that you can't code for the bleeding edge of the technology curve; you have to code for the mainstream PC. This means that you won't see any games that need 35M polys/sec until the GeForce 2 Ultra (or equivalent) becomes the average video card among the game's audience, and the bleeding edge is crunching around 160M polys/sec. Higher-order surface compression will help this a lot, actually, but it introduces its own set of problems. How do you calculate a BSP tree with higher-order surfs? You don't, it doesn't help you much. Does the hardware support rapid tesselation and geoetry caching? Can you afford the tesselation times for those carved gothic cathedrals?... And so on.I'm sure if you're a regular reader of PCG, PCP and PCF you'll no doubt have seen the whitespace being devoted the ongoing argument of PCs versus consoles.The truth is: PCs win. Consoles are simply becoming more like the PC, but a little behind on the specs.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. How are PCs faster than consoles at the time of the console's launch? Show me a PC available today capable of crunching 70M polys/sec, with programmable raster registers (note: not texel, programmable rastregs are simpler, but allow for things like cheap perturbation-based FSAA), and a fillrate of 400Mpixels/sec. You won't be able to.
The X-Box is a lot like a PC, but it will be more powerful (again, I direct you to the nv2A's specs) than PCs at the time it is released. The power of the console comes from knowing your hardware configuration exactly, and being able to tightly optimize your game to that hardware. nVidia will release a chip for the PC faster than the one for the X-Box a few months after the launch of the latter. Game makers, however, will not be able to code for this chip alone, because very few people will have one.
Now, a year or two after the launch of the X-Box (or PS/2) is a different matter. By then, the median PC will be superior to these consoles, so PC games will be undeniably better. Look at Playstation(1) games vs. PC games today; it's no contest.The Mac too. To be honest I don't know much about the G5 but from the specs that I have heard its just the next step of evolution for the Mac, and that step is once again closer to the PC.Somebody got it right, a lot of people made some big mistakes. IBM were right, and the console companies were wrong - as people do, the console companies both old and new, are trying to put right what they put wrong.Yes, System Shock was superior to Doom, and Marathon inferior.Agreed that iD (not Id, or ID) do need to learn a bit about storytelling, atmosphere etc. Maybe a few lessons from Valve are in order?Thief is not an RPG in the general sense, but for all intents and purposes it can be and is treated as an RPG in the games industry. Deus Ex is an RPG, but its also been mixed with about 50% of all the other genres, so there is no single genre under which it can be described.No game has an even remotely correct physics engine? Agreed. But then, the definitions and laws of physics change every day anyway.And actually, I'm correcting you based on the Sony and Microsoft whitepapers. Are you sure that you have the official information because it certainly disagrees with the information they've sent me.
References:
Stokes, John. "Sound and Vision: A Technical Overview of the Emotion Engine", Ars Technica, 2000.
Stokes, John. "The Playstation2 vs. the PC: a System-level Comparison of Two 3D Platforms", Ars Technica, 2000.
Abrash, Michael. "A powerful game platform waiting in the wings". Dr. Dobb's Journal, August 2000
Abrash, Michael. "X-Box Memory Bandwidth". Sidebar. Dr. Dobb's Journal, August 2000.
Technical Presentation on Microsoft's X-Box, Microsoft. ECOT 189, Colorado University. Sept. 28, 2000.
F.M. Raam et al., "A High Bandwidth Superscalar Microprocessor for Multimedia Applications," ISSCC Digest of Technical Papers,Feb. 1999, pp. 258-259.
A. Kunimatsu et al., 5.5 GFLOPS Vector Units for "Emotion Synthesis", (Slide show and presentation.) System ULSI Engineering Laboratory, TOSHIBA Corp. and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
Masaaki Oka Masakazu Suzuoki. Designing and Programming the Emotion Engine, Sony Computer Entertainment. IEEE Micro, pp. 20-28
~~
Ignie Ferroque,
Ash. - "Non Facete Nobis Calcitrare Vestrvm Perinævm"
[This message has been edited by G`Kar (edited 08-10-2000).]0 -
lordsippa wrote...If I remember correctly, the physics engine in Blood was pretty good (if limited to very linear uses).Also, isn't that upcoming game based around the Cthulu Mythos supposed to have a near perfect physics engine, that's FULLY manipulative. Or so I've been told.
Halo is the only game I've seen that looks like it might have very strong physics. It is rather hard to tell, though, from scripted sequences, since you can script in actions that apparantly obey the laws of physics.Oh, is anyone here interested in the law of quantum uncertainty? It's kinda fun.
On a final subject change, has anyone else here heard about the findings that prove that electrons act differently, depending on whether they're watched or not? It's very strange and scary and interesting and stuff.It's a major reason for my desire to major in physics (actually, String theory and the like are the true reasons, but they are essentially based on quantum mechanics). The experiment you're talking about is about seventy years old (I forget the exact date -you'll notice how I'm not going into history
), and forms the basis of quantum mechanics. Now quantum entanglement, on the other hand, is fairly recent, and very interesting...
On the subject of early games; the best are the Jill of the Jungle and Commander Keen series. Text-based MUDs are also fairly entertaining, though I don't play them too much; they aren't *too* attractive to me at present, and I don't want to risk getting dragged into their enticing web like so many of my friends.
~~
Ignie Ferroque,
Ash. - "Non Facete Nobis Calcitrare Vestrvm Perinævm"0 -
Alone In The Dark 4 may be (is) based around the Cthulu Mythos, but it's not the game I'm talking about. The one I've heard of is a FPS which has an amazing physics engine. It allows you, for example, to build a car by sticking axles and wheels around an engine block, then putting on a frame. Everything works. OK, so not the best example, but it's all I can think of. You can also build your own weapons like that (though only in a level editor, natch). Imagine the possibilties: "You may have a shoulder mounted rocket launcher, but I have a candle, some cheese and a wire!" "ARGH!"
Sven
(Best oldy is Ultima 7... damn! Too modern -1993- um... Elite / Neuromancer / Frogger)0 -
I think I know of the game you're thinking of, the name excapes me at the moment. Mafia is somewhat similar (you can build weapons in-game), although the developers may be dropping it because of problems with all the new engines they've just switched over to. I still looks like a great game though.
MUDs are still OK. They can be very entertaining if they're well written.
iMP
[This message has been edited by imp (edited 08-10-2000).]0 -
Originally posted by G`Kar:
I'm very glad that you have carefully weighted the pros and cons of each API, and personally performed simple tasks with each API to determine their relative usability. You have done that, right?...
DirectX's purported superioriority to OpenGL is a piece of Microsoft propoganda that has been repeated enough for it to apparantly become truth. It isn't. Only now, in revision seven, is Direct 3D beginning to equal OpenGL in terms of capability. Even now, nVidia's OpenGL extensions (GL_NV_vertex_array_range, GL_NV_fence, GL_NV_light_max_exponent, GL_NV_register_combiners, GL_NV_fog_distance, GL_NV_texgen_emboss, GL_NV_blend_square, GL_NV_texture_env_combine4, and a few others) give nVidia's OpenGL implementation more power than Direct3D. On the X-Box, though, both APIs will probably be equal in power.
If you are referring to things like DirectSound and DirectMusic (and -Lord help us- DirectPlay), then stop. Those are entirely seperate from the D3D graphics API, and using them as evidence of DirectX's superiority over OpenGL is just plain silly.
Actually, they're interdependent with the D3D graphics API. And if you go through Microsoft's website you'll find many more DirectX technologies. And if you have the time for massive downloads get the DirectX SDK and the OpenGL SDK and see which is easier to program for.That's one of the big things they were talking about last thursday Thursday (Sept. 28th); the specs haven't been nailed down. The CPU will be a fairly well modified version of whatever chip Intel is producing when the hardware is being finalized.Calling them cards is misleading, especially in the case of the sound system, which is integrated onto the North Bridge (the FSB controller). They are chips integrated into the system bus. You don't say that your PC has an IDE card, do you? (Unless it's phenomenally old, and actually does...).It [DVD] was developed by a board (of Sony is a member, along with the MPAA) as a general data storage system. Sony would have been interested in it for use in PCs, consoles, and movies (they own Columbia Entertainment). DVD-Rom drives in PCs were probably the second use of DVD technology (with your home DVD players being the first). Yes, the drives in home machines and in players are essentially identical. DVDs just use UFS (Universal File System?), and movies are just stored as mpeg cabinet files. I know, I've looked.
Yes, Sony and the MPAA were on the board that developed DVD. And why was it developed? To replace the VCD technology which hadn't caught on and simply introduce a new system which was better quality and had more features. DVD was developed for film storage, DVD-ROM was developed for the PC. They're different. An audio CD and a CD-ROM are quite different, similarly. While they are essentially based on the same idea, i.e. pits on the disc surface, there is a different recording/reading process on a DVD/CD and a DVD-ROM/CD-ROM. Which is why your hi-fi simply doesn't realise that Diablo II doesn't have normal audio on it.Where? Where can I buy a PC (that is, x86 architecture native) capable of a 70M poly/sec throughput, and an appropriate framerate?
Even the Intergraph Wildfire systems don't have a polygon throughput that high, and even then, their fill rates are fairly pathetic. Likewise for SGI's Visual Workstation line; it's fast, but not that fast.
For reference, the fastest chip presently available is the GeForce 2 Ultra, with a polygon throughput of approximately 35M poly/sec. Will nVidia release a chip that exceeds the Playstation 2's power? Yes. Have they, as of today (7 / 10 / 00)? No. Has anyone else? Unless you know of someone I don't, then nope...[/I]
The GeForce 2 Ultra does perform better than any other at present, you're right. If you trust specs. But if you benchmark it you'll find that some (although as I mentioned much more expensive) cards perform much better. Also, its very easy to overclock the GeForce 2, in which case that performance can be reached, for just the cost of adding an extra fan if necessary.It can eventually excel them.The other thing holding back PC games is the fact that you can't code for the bleeding edge of the technology curve; you have to code for the mainstream PC.
If you code for what is today's most advanced PC, you'll find that by the time you're finished its the average PC.This year, just like five years ago, people are foretelling the End of PC Gaming. It isn't going to happen. PCs and consoles provide such a completely different experience. Could you imagine playing Deus Ex on a console? No, it requires a more intimate setting, and a more advanced control scheme than most consoles can comfortably manage.
Agreed.Yes, the Playstation2 is exactly like a PC. </sarcasm>At their core, PCs and Consoles are *very* similar devices, and always have been (the PSX2 is something of a step away from that, but for all its weirdness, the fundamental architecture is essentially the same).
Yes, because in the 80s a huge grey cartridge was the same as a 5 and a quarter inch (or was it the even older 8 inch) floppy disk.You know what I mean. I'd settle for a Newtonian physics engine that works correctly. It is a difficult problem, though, and appreciate how tricky it is, especially when properly modeling physics may or may not be important to you.
Most people do settle for Newtonian physics. When was the last time a maths teacher admitted that the three angles of a triangle didn't have to add up to 180 degrees?
iMP0 -
Advertisement
-
imp wrote...Actually, they're interdependent with the D3D graphics API.And if you go through Microsoft's website you'll find many more DirectX technologies. And if you have the time for massive downloads get the DirectX SDK and the OpenGL SDK and see which is easier to program for.
In any case, I have downloaded it. Direct X 3 was absolutely terrible, and it took me this long to try to forget the horrible taste it left in my mouth, and download DX7. DX7 is much improved over DX3, but it still isn't up to OpenGL's ease of use yet. To some extent, it's also a personal thing. DirectX allows you to fudge a bit, and pull some deep-hardware stuff that perhaps isn't the best idea. OpenGL forces a level of abstraction that some programmers find uncomfortable. Still, virtually everyone I've talked with (or read interviews of) prefers OpenGL to DirectX in terms of pure programmical ease. However, when you factor in issues like 3dfx's absolutely terrible OpenGL support (which should start improving, hopefully, now that they're an ARB member), choosing an API becomes a bit trickier.Which is why they're been called the final specs, right? The only thing in question is whether its going to be a PIII or P4 processor.GC: You guys announced the latest specs this week. It's up to a 733[-MHz processor], 64MB, and the Nvidia chip.
S.B.: We changed from a 600 to 733, and we thought people would be excited, and instead we had all these stories where [exaggerated voice], "Oh, the specs not nailed down yet!" What? Hello? What happened to you're happy about that?
The Microsoft rep. at the X-Box talk I attended (9 / 28 / 00, Colorado University ECOT 189) echoed Seamus in this; the specs aren't nailed down, and nobody affiliated with the project has called anything the "final specs".I accept your point, but its still essentially the same hardware. OK, a few less pieces of silicon (or sometimes copper), and a few less wires, but everything that's on the card is on the integrated hardware.
Scary thing: In the X-Box spec. whitepaper, it is written that the opening sound and graphic will be played and displayed, respectively, by poking at the internal registers of the video and sound boards, since the OS kernel isn't loaded yet at that point in time. It's a frightening concept, something you would never do in a PC, because without video probing and such, you risk probing registers that aren't meant to be probed. With a console, though, all those fears go away.
Also, note: Copper is not used as a primary wafer material, primarily because it isn't a semi-conductor. It is used for interconnects between transistors, but the vast majority of the chip is still silicon.Yes, Sony and the MPAA were on the board that developed DVD. And why was it developed? To replace the VCD technology which hadn't caught on and simply introduce a new system which was better quality and had more features.DVD was developed for film storage,DVD-ROM was developed for the PC.They're different.
A DVD is a DVD-ROM, with a specific directory strucutre, and the movie stored in .vob files. Really. Don't take my word for it, take a DVD, put it in your DVD-ROM drive, and open it with explorer (or whatever file manager you prefer). It's all there. If you want, you can even copy those .vob files off your drive, decrypt them using DeCSS, and watch them (they'll be normal MPEG files). It works just fine.An audio CD and a CD-ROM are quite different, similarly.The GeForce 2 Ultra does perform better than any other at present, you're right. If you trust specs. But if you benchmark it you'll find that some (although as I mentioned much more expensive) cards perform much better.
WHICH ONES?
Find me a PC that can produce a polygon throughput of 75M poly/sec. That's all I want. In fact, if you can find a card that outperforms (in terms of polygon throughput) the GeForce 2 Ultra (again, with a respectable fillrate), then I'll be quiet.Also, its very easy to overclock the GeForce 2, in which case that performance can be reached, for just the cost of adding an extra fan if necessary.
The highest speed to which a GeForce 2 Ultra's core has been reliably overclocked is about 300 Mhz. This is not due to thermal constraints (they had a fairly hefty cooling system on it), but rather to limitations of the silicon; at some point, cross-transistor electron migration and hole dispersion latency become too high for the CMOS to function properly. Let's be generous and say that we can push a GeForce 2 Ultra up to 350 Mhz. Let's also say that core frequency is directly related to polygon throughput.
The GeForce 2 Ultra's standard operating frequency is 250Mhz, and its standard throughput is 35M polys/sec.
350 / 250 = 1.4
1.4 (35 polys/sec) = 49M polys/sec
Even if you could somehow overclock a GeForce 2 Ultra to 350Mhz, you still wouldn't anywhere near the Playstation2's peak throughput of 80M polys/sec.Nope, it CAN excel them.If you code for what is today's most advanced PC, you'll find that by the time you're finished its the average PC.
In any case, my point stands: There will be very few games capable of harnessing the power of bleeding-edge PCs at any given point in time.When you say you're being sarcastic, you are unknowingly also being sarcastic about that statement.Yes, because in the 80s a huge grey cartridge was the same as a 5 and a quarter inch (or was it the even older 8 inch) floppy disk.
I'm not saying that consoles are exactly the same as PCs -again, look at the Playstation2- just that the two ultimately have similar technologies. The PSX2 has a CPU with SIMD processors, a sound synthesizer, and a bank of RDRAM. It's still not a PC.Most people do settle for Newtonian physics. When was the last time a maths teacher admitted that the three angles of a triangle didn't have to add up to 180 degrees?
A better example might be a science teacher not admitting that kinetic energy isn't quite 1/2 mv^2...
~~
Ignie Ferroque,
Ash. - "Non Facete Nobis Calcitrare Vestrvm Perinævm"0 -
Im really going to regret getting involved in this again, but...
Before i start id request that people keep posts shorter than they have been. That is if you strangely feel the urge to keep replying. Or at least start a continued thread.
Mainly im replying to ashvins reply.
[Staying away from consoles discussion!!]
Counter-Strike isnt that simple compared with other FPS mods. But i accept that yes, basically, it is still a case of running around shooting everything which moves (except your team). Which, funnily enough, leads me onto the argument over the 'juvenile community'. This depends incredibly on the servers you use and who you play with. When i play i play with a clan. We take the game seriously (well, as seriously as its meant to be taken i.e. a bit of a laugh, but no TKing or anything) and i have anyone who doesnt take it seriously kicked. 'Juvenile communities' is a gross generality.
Never played Marathon or the original System Shock. But then again, back in those days i still only had an Amstrad CPC. I only played Doom 1 after playing Doom 2, which was defnitely the best game released of its time.
Simple Levels? Tell me Ashvin, did you ever actually play Doom 2 all the way through. It had some of the best level designs ive ever seen in any game. Play Doom 2 again. Levels such as 'Tricks and Traps' and 'Downtown' are classics. And 'Barrels of Fun' was the most fun level ever.
Red Key Cards. Yes. The simplest ideazs are often the best.
As for single player iD games, they have the atmosphere but not the storytelling. iD dont really make their games for single player. Since Doom 2 the emphasis has always been on multiplayer.
Dont get sarcastic about RPGs with me. System Shock 2 was an RPG. Not even you can deny that. Deus Ex was also an RPG. When you have an engine like that in a game you have to sacrifice something, and im not saying that it was particularly complex with the whole statistics thing or anything. However, it displays the basic characteristics of an RPG. Immersive storyline, character building. It is an RPG. Thief is more complex. First Person Sneaker is in fact an excellent way to describe it. When i said it was an RPG, i meant it has a good storyline and certain character building elements.
What i meant by 'Sounds like fun, but again, only if its done right' was that Deus Ex wouldnt lend itself to multiplayer that easily. It would be remarkably easily to screw up. It will take particular care to be implemented properly.
Fine then. Misunderstand me when i say 'real' physics. I didnt mean that the physics work as they would in the real world. I meant that various equations and so on are used so that basically, how you run or jump or glide or whatever isnt made up and just activated every time you press the key. Tribes had an advanced physics engine. Thats not to say you wouldnt know the difference if you were dropped into the tribes world, the whole 'for the time' element is taken for granted. Another game with an excellent physics engine is Carmageddon 2. Dont start me on the technicalities, because basically you'll lose me. I acknowledge your superior technological skill, but i know my games.but the Q2 single-player game was just plain boring, and nauseatingly so, thanks to the color sceme.I've played it since a week after its release. So far, this novelty thing you speak of has not worn off. I must just be too simple-minded to realize it's simply an inferior game to anything Id software has ever released...
Alternately, you could make the quantum leap of logic and consider the possibility that some people really, genuinely, find Unreal Tournament to be a fun game with a solid gameplay design (and some killer mods).
oooh sarcasm again. Seriously, i think youll find that im very open minded. Go to the quake forum and youll find closed minded people. They still play a 6 year old game and claim that its still better than any other. Theyre afraid that moving onto a different game will take their edge away. Ask Marty. At DCU this year i was a big UT fan. I didnt like Q3 at all. Since then though, UT has grown old for me. The only mod i play now is InstaGib. If you still like it then good luck to you
I wish you well in the future
Woooo Quake 3 graphics argument againYou know what i said about technicalities. Do you actually play the games or just sit around admiring the scenery?
Im glad we agree on something.
Blood didnt have a good physics engine. Blood was based on the Duke Nukem 3d engine, aka 'a big load of hacks sitting on a very simple engine'. It was a fun game though. Blood 2 was based on the LithTech engine (Shogo) and it was a lot of fun.
Half Life was a very linear game. A lot of fun though.
Enough with the discussion alreadyIm not going to say any more about it, anyway. Actually, if you intend to have a big technical gaming discussion, let the rest of the boards in on it, theyll add their impressions im sure. I suggest the games forum.
A0 -
Just found this board thanks to a tip-off; unlike Lucutus and Canaboid I'm not quite an interloper, I did CTYI a long, long time ago
Interesting tech discussions here, me likey!DX7 is much improved over DX3, but it still isn't up to OpenGL's ease of use yet. To some extent, it's also a personal thing. DirectX allows you to fudge a bit, and pull some deep-hardware stuff that perhaps isn't the best idea. OpenGL forces a level of abstraction that some programmers find uncomfortable. Still, virtually everyone I've talked with (or read interviews of) prefers OpenGL to DirectX in terms of pure programmical ease. However, when you factor in issues like 3dfx's absolutely terrible OpenGL support (which should start improving, hopefully, now that they're an ARB member), choosing an API becomes a bit trickier.
DirectX doesn't actually allow any more deep-hardware stuff than OpenGL does - not inherently, anyway. It's down to the GL extensions, which are down to individual card manufacturers. DX does fudge it all though; they tend to tack on DX calls for every tiny crappy thing that a card can do, causing much weeping and gnashing of teeth when you actually try to use those features in any games. OGL extentions, at least, are properly implemented, even if there are some of them that don't exist which really should, and some of them which are kludged - like the sorry state of affairs around bumpmapping GL extensions.
As for 3DFX... urgh, don't even start. Thank god their market share is sliding so fast. To be honest, the temptation is huge to completely disregard 3DFX flaws during implementation stages, and then tack on support in later stages; the grief involved in getting graphics-intensive stuff to work on 3DFX boards isn't worth the 6 or 7 percent of the market they control.The Microsoft rep. at the X-Box talk I attended (9 / 28 / 00, Colorado University ECOT 189) echoed Seamus in this; the specs aren't nailed down, and nobody affiliated with the project has called anything the "final specs".
Crapola. The final specs were nailed down before the GDC this year. I dunno what crack your MS rep was smoking, but we've had final specs set in stone for ages - not to mention dev kits! Given the number of dev studios here that are doing XBox work, I'd imagine MS would have mentioned to one of them if the XBox spec was about to change...CDs and CD-ROMs are fundamentally different in terms of their data storage system.
Dammit, you were doing so well too! I'm nitpicking here, I know, but the track system is the same for the two types; there is a basic difference between a data track and an audio track, but realistically it's the same storage medium and formatting.Even if you could somehow overclock a GeForce 2 Ultra to 350Mhz, you still wouldn't anywhere near the Playstation2's peak throughput of 80M polys/sec.
Heehee, lets see you get a PS2 to throughput that either mind. No seriously. Show me a PS2 demo that manages that poly throughput. You can't, because IT can't. Figures like that are intrinsically bullsh1t.the PSX2's architecture is superior to the PC's when it comes to the processing of high-bandwidth data.
Only from an engineering point of view. The PS2 is an engineers wet dream; it's just a shame they didn't bother asking any developers what they thought of all these wonderful ideas, because had they done so, we'd have a slightly less powerful PS2 with a hell of a lot better games.
Oh, and Asuka...System Shock 2 was an RPG. Not even you can deny that. Deus Ex was also an RPG.
Depends who you ask. Lets face it, you can't categorise these things any more! We've changed entire editorial systems because of the realisation that it's nigh-on impossible to pigeonhole any decent modern games into genres. Arguing about this is pointless; no matter which genre you try and fit a game like Deus Ex into, you're still wrong
Ja,
Rob
[EED]Shinji - shinji@electricdeath.com
Creative Director, Neko Technologies
UK Editor, GameLoft.Com
0 -
Ashvin? I'm sorry but you have no life, meant in the nicest possible way ever!!! tooooo much details and bloody references!!!
Askua, u just like arguing!!!damn it i know.
rob? hello!
xxx
Fionnuala!0 -
Its nice to see that I have some good support (thanks Rob, whoever you are).
I'll be talking more on the subject tomorrow, when I have enough time.
iMP0 -
Interesting tech discussions here, me likey!DirectX doesn't actually allow any more deep-hardware stuff than OpenGL does - not inherently, anyway. It's down to the GL extensions, which are down to individual card manufacturers. DX does fudge it all though; they tend to tack on DX calls for every tiny crappy thing that a card can do, causing much weeping and gnashing of teeth when you actually try to use those features in any games. OGL extentions, at least, are properly implemented, even if there are some of them that don't exist which really should, and some of them which are kludged - like the sorry state of affairs around bumpmapping GL extensions.
Let me put it another way: OpenGL forces developers to do things the Right Way, pushing pure graphics information to the driver, and letting the driver handle the details of the hardware. DirectX lets the developer fudge their implementation quite a bit by making DirectX calls that may or may not in fact behave in a fast (or even particularly well-defined) manner on all present and future hardware. As an example, OpenGL forces you to trust the driver's texture management, whereas with DirectX, you can shuffle textures around in memory.
There are pros and cons to each approach. I happen to like OpenGL's setup more, but it does require well-written drivers for good performance (see: nVidia). The flip-side of that is that OpenGL is insanely portable, since you don't have to write anything pertaining to the behavior of any specific piece of hardware; in a year or two, the way a new card manages geometry and textures might be entirely different than right now, but your OpenGL program will still be fairly efficient, since the driver is doing all the low-level work. With DirectX, on the other hand, you are given the ability to pull more hardware-specific tricks, with the downside (the five hundred kiloton downside...) being that your program can do weird things on different cards, the nuances of which you have not yet fully taken into account.
I agree with you on the state of some of the OGL extensions. Maybe the ARB will clean some of these issues up with 1.3.As for 3DFX... urgh, don't even start. Thank god their market share is sliding so fast. To be honest, the temptation is huge to completely disregard 3DFX flaws during implementation stages, and then tack on support in later stages; the grief involved in getting graphics-intensive stuff to work on 3DFX boards isn't worth the 6 or 7 percent of the market they control.Crapola. The final specs were nailed down before the GDC this year. I dunno what crack your MS rep was smoking, but we've had final specs set in stone for ages - not to mention dev kits! Given the number of dev studios here that are doing XBox work, I'd imagine MS would have mentioned to one of them if the XBox spec was about to change...GC: Is there a rough schedule to get [development] units out sometime at the end of the year, the beginning of the year.
S.B.: You know, there are already 1,500 dev units right now.
GC: Those are the XDKs.
S.B.: So the XDK is an evolving platform, right? You get the XDK today, there's another upgrade coming this year, there's another update at the very beginning of the year, then there's the final hardware. And so you get software and hardware updates the entire way through. This is what we're doing so people can push the limit on their launch titles. The danger of the launch title is that because you don't have final hardware is that everyone is conservative and doesn't take full advantage of the hardware.
Now, I admit there is some chance that I'm very wrong, and that there is a vast conspiracy at Microsoft, the sole purpose of which is to screw me over (it wouldn't be the first time). However, when the X-Box's originator Seamus Blackley says something about the X-Box to an interviewer, and an MS rep. says the same thing to me a few days later, I tend to believe it to be something resembling the truth.
When MS changes the X-Box specs, then says it's still an evolving platform, I tend to believe that the specs aren't fixed, and that it's still an evolving platform...Dammit, you were doing so well too! I'm nitpicking here, I know, but the track system is the same for the two types; there is a basic difference between a data track and an audio track, but realistically it's the same storage medium and formatting.
How about this: Audio CDs and CD-Roms use fundamentally different filesystems, even though the data on Audio CDs is ultimately just raw 16-bit (or 22-bit) PCM-encoded audio, which could be stored just as well on an iso9660 filesystem.
Better?Heehee, lets see you get a PS2 to throughput that either mind. No seriously. Show me a PS2 demo that manages that poly throughput. You can't, because IT can't. Figures like that are intrinsically bullsh1t.
Assuming everything else is equal (equally bad, that is), then comparing the peak throughputs of the two systems is a perfectly good way of determining the superior hardware. If you do, in fact, take other considerations into account, then the PC will likely suffer an even greater defeat, due to the presence of numerous bottlenecks that just aren't there on the PSX2.Only from an engineering point of view. The PS2 is an engineers wet dream; it's just a shame they didn't bother asking any developers what they thought of all these wonderful ideas, because had they done so, we'd have a slightly less powerful PS2 with a hell of a lot better games.Depends who you ask. Lets face it, you can't categorise these things any more! We've changed entire editorial systems because of the realisation that it's nigh-on impossible to pigeonhole any decent modern games into genres. Arguing about this is pointless; no matter which genre you try and fit a game like Deus Ex into, you're still wrong.
:: Does that head-nodding thing ::
Deus Ex is not a real time strategy game. I think I can safely say that... (now, watch, someone will take RTS to mean something other than the Starcrafty games to which everybody knows I'm referring).
~~
Ignie Ferroque,
Ash. - "Non Facete Nobis Calcitrare Vestrvm Perinævm"
0 -
Now, I admit there is some chance that I'm very wrong, and that there is a vast conspiracy at Microsoft, the sole purpose of which is to screw me over (it wouldn't be the first time). However, when the X-Box's originator Seamus Blackley says something about the X-Box to an interviewer, and an MS rep. says the same thing to me a few days later, I tend to believe it to be something resembling the truth.
When MS changes the X-Box specs, then says it's still an evolving platform, I tend to believe that the specs aren't fixed, and that it's still an evolving platform...
Ahhhhhhh! I see where you're coming from; I fear you're misinterpreting the good Mr Blackley. The specs of the XDK change regularly as they grow closer to the final X-Box spec, quite simply because NVIDIA et al haven't produced final silicon for their chipsets yet. The actual paper spec for the XBox remains static, it's just that the XDK units are still striving to meet that spec.Assuming everything else is equal (equally bad, that is), then comparing the peak throughputs of the two systems is a perfectly good way of determining the superior hardware. If you do, in fact, take other considerations into account, then the PC will likely suffer an even greater defeat, due to the presence of numerous bottlenecks that just aren't there on the PSX2.
Depends, really. I can do some things much faster on the PC than I can on the PSX2, and vice versa. Bullfrog hit this problem in porting Q3A to the Playstation2; Q3 precalcs its geometry and stores it in memory, which makes it nice and fast on the PC thanks to a superfast memory architecture. On the PS2, this was dog slow (we're talking 5 or 6 frames per second peak) because the memory architecture of the PS2 is such a load of crap. It's faster to recalculate the geometry tesselation each frame than it is to precalc it and pull it out of memory (assuming you can get the vector units doing the tesselation right in the first place) which requires something of a shift in mindset for coders!However, given time, I believe that developers will find ways of squeezing every last little bit of juice out of that machine, even if they have to be on acid to do it. Look at some of the last games released for the PSX by Square -damn fine work, considering the limitations. I firmly believe that they will eventually wrap their heads around the machine, and start churning out some incredible games. It will just take longer than it would have had Sony written a developer friendly PSXDK.
There's still the prospect that this could kill off the PS2 to a degree, as developers can produce better quality titles faster on the GameCube, XBox and DreamCast. It'd be a minor factor though; if anything is going to kill PS2, it'll be Sonys amazing arrogance and mistreatment of consumers and retail.Deus Ex is not a real time strategy game. I think I can safely say that... (now, watch, someone will take RTS to mean something other than the Starcrafty games to which everybody knows I'm referring).
Consider it done! I mean, after all, Deus Ex requires you to develop strategies for handling situations that arise in real time, does it not? :P
ja,
Rob aka [EED]Shinji
PS - Hi Fionnuala0 -
Ahhhhhhh! I see where you're coming from; I fear you're misinterpreting the good Mr Blackley. The specs of the XDK change regularly as they grow closer to the final X-Box spec, quite simply because NVIDIA et al haven't produced final silicon for their chipsets yet. The actual paper spec for the XBox remains static, it's just that the XDK units are still striving to meet that spec.
Except that Microsoft has changed the X-Box specs, bumping the processor up from 600Mhz to 700Mhz. No, it isn't a major change, but it still indicates (as Seamus says in that very same interview) that the X-Box's final spec isn't nailed down. Yeah, it is quite certain that the X-Box will have an Intel chip and nVidia graphcs and MCU units, but the details are still being tweaked. The graphics specs have remained fairly constant, though, with claims of about 150M dual textured polys/sec. I haven't heard anything about their MCU, other than its existence.Depends, really. I can do some things much faster on the PC than I can on the PSX2, and vice versa. Bullfrog hit this problem in porting Q3A to the Playstation2; Q3 precalcs its geometry and stores it in memory, which makes it nice and fast on the PC thanks to a superfast memory architecture. On the PS2, this was dog slow (we're talking 5 or 6 frames per second peak) because the memory architecture of the PS2 is such a load of crap. It's faster to recalculate the geometry tesselation each frame than it is to precalc it and pull it out of memory (assuming you can get the vector units doing the tesselation right in the first place) which requires something of a shift in mindset for coders!
Having said that, if I were Sony, I would have added more fast-access SPRAM to act as cache if the developers absolutely, positively believed they couldn't live without it (I would also up the system memory to at least 32M, possibly 64M, though that would make my losses fairly high). Of course, if I were Sony, I would also build a system with four Emotion Engines coupled with 512M of RDRAM, and sell it as a graphics workstation. I'd buy one of those...There's still the prospect that this could kill off the PS2 to a degree, as developers can produce better quality titles faster on the GameCube, XBox and DreamCast. It'd be a minor factor though; if anything is going to kill PS2, it'll be Sonys amazing arrogance and mistreatment of consumers and retail.Consider it done! I mean, after all, Deus Ex requires you to develop strategies for handling situations that arise in real time, does it not? :P
~~
Ignie Ferroque,
Ash. - "Non Facete Nobis Calcitrare Vestrvm Perinævm"0 -
OK, let's end these overly long posts and this overly long argument.
Consoles CAN be better than the PC (compare a NES to a PC of the same age...). In modern day, this is becoming increasingly difficult as PC technology is increasing at an immense rate. Let's face it, NO console is going to be better than the BEST PC, 'cause if it was the cost would be too high to sell it to anyone.
Power is not the point with consoles. The point is ease of use. Modern consoles seem to be deviating from this point somewhat, but lets face it... it still is easier to boot up a Playstation and play FFVIII than it is to boot up a PC, install FFVIII and then go into your start menu/programs/eidos interactive/squaresoft/ffviii.
THAT is why consoles sell! Nobody wants an eight year old screwing around with their pc unsupervised ("What's 'Format' do? Let's try it!"). So, the child grows up with a console (or even worse, TV). Then it's up to the person to decide if they want to change to PCs (difficulties, but better specs) or stick with consoles (easy to use, but quickly dated).
Also, on the point of the internet: It will suck on consoles. When new modem technology comes out, the consoles won't be able to take advantage of it. Some internet features will be much harder to use on consoles. Internet browsers will be much harder to upgrade. AND... will a Sony or Microsoft console allow you to use Napster? (Error! File not found! - my ass!)
So, that's why you should stick with PCs (or macs). Or even better, Amigas!
Sven0 -
Sven, I realise that the Amiga was (and is) one of the best computers of all time, but it can do fu<k all compared to today's computers, so people should have both an Amiga and a PC.
And I agree with just about everything else you said in what was probably your longest post.
iMP0 -
Advertisement
-
The Amiga CAN perform similar to an average PC (the latest ones that is). The fact is that their owners (Gateway) aren't marketing them over here. It has a minority following in England, a reasonable following in Germany and some other European countries. In the USA, it is unknown (Damn you, you ba$tard$!).
I urge everyone who uses these boards and has sufficient funds, to buy an Amiga! They really are fabulous - even if you are putting money in Gateways pocket. As soon as I can afford it, I'm getting one (to counteract iMPs obvious next statement).
A number of British Amiga magazines are still in print today, which tells you the unconditional support fans have to the system (also proving its superiority). And yes, the Amiga DOES have internet support and in Britain, it was the first COMMON home internet system!
All in all, the Amiga rules supremo! And the name is Spanish for "girlfriend". So how can you lose?
Sven0 -
Sorry, completely forgot about all those new Amigas, was only thinking of the old ones. You're right, the new ones can perform as well as a PC, but they've not been marketed over here and even in other parts of the world relatively little software supports them. I would also get an Amiga, if I had the funds, which I don't yet. And I wouldn't actually have made that statement.
Ahem, there's about four or five large Amiga magazines in Britain. There's hundreds of ones for PCs, Macs and consoles, so that doesn't prove the Amiga's superiority. He's right about the first common home internet system bit.
And just because something is called "girlfriend", Sven, doesn't mean its anything like it. Although a great deal of innuendoish metaphors could be made out of it.
iMP
[This message has been edited by imp (edited 14-10-2000).]0 -
As regards the magazine argument, I meant it as a statement of how such an unsupported system still has a following large enough to support a number of magazines. The Atari didn't manage that towards the end! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And innuendos are worth it alone!
bye!
(Oh, did you know that Sonys "new" data transfer pen technology was originally designed for the amiga a year or so before sony designed to market its own model)0 -
No, I didn't know that.
iMP0 -
Well, well, well. Time to re-ignite the X-Box vs. PC fight (assuming that GKar is still lurking around somewhere). Bill Gates launched the box on Saturday night in Las Vegas, and I have to honestly say, my PC can do that! Well, OK, I'm stuck with a Voodoo 3 3000 AGP, but, if my 3D card was slightly newer, I'd be outperforming the X-Box left right and center. And its not even gonna be released 'til Autumn this year (US). so, to Bill Gates and GKar I say: pah!.
iMP }:>0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shurikan:
But seriously, we're from CTYI which is the coolest place on the planet cos it's filled with happy happy fun nice people.
Susan</font>
No offence but it wasn't THAT good. Okay, so I meant it to be offencive. Haha.0 -
Your PC can do what a console which isnt out for several more months can do? Well done. Congratulations. The X-Box will obviously be able to do more stuff than they can show 8/9 months before release. Not to mention - how many release titles of any console display the full potential of the console? Was there no gap between Ridge Racer and Ridge Racer Type 4? Tekken 1 and Tekken 3 (or Dead or Alive is a better example)? Wipeout and Wip3out?
X-Box will do some very good stuff.
A0 -
Actually the box shown on Saturday was the finished version. Now all they're doing is the kernel, and the actual games. Oh right, and making enough of them for the time it goes on sale. I stand by my statement that my PC, apart from my german-code-breaker-of-a-3D Card, seems to be able to do it all. My PC's very up-to-date now, and I expect that come Autumn we'll all be running 2Ghz DDRs with GeForce 3s etc.... Well, not all of us, obviously. Only the rich ones. Which are few. Having seen the original promotional videos for the X-Box just after it was announced, and various newer demonstrations and videos etc., I must say that - as Microsoft claim - it does put all the other consoles to shame. The videos were very good. Lovely even. Especially at the time. But PCs are advancing everyday. The only advantage I can see for the X-Box (over a PC) is the idea of a uniform hardware and software setup for every system, cutting down on compatibility problems. But then, all consoles have that anyway. Microsoft is, as usual, trying to draw another computer market much closer to the PC, where I'm sure we'll all agree MS beats the competition hands-down whether we like it or not. They are advancing the console market with the X-Box, but for those of us with a PC, its not going to be worth getting. Except so that we can say "oooh! Look at the shape" (which, incidentally won't be possible anyway since its now roughly the shape of the PSX2). Can anybody remember back to the days of Quake? Well, can you also remember to more recent times when it was released for the N64?? The machine struggled with the game. The game was much older than the console (which was, apparently, the best at the time), but still was better when we played it on our cutting edge 486s in 1995. This is essentially the same situation. X-Box? Just say "no" kids.
iMP }:>
Sorry, that last statement was a bit cliché, wasn't it?0 -
Um... Quake didn't run well on a 486. And the full version wouldn't run at all (it required a pentium and although there were ways of making the game think you had one, why would you? it was practically unplayable).
I know this, because I tried setting it up on a friends pc (a 486 with stupidly high RAM) and it wouldn't. Admittadly, it was a memory problem at first, but he read the required stats (to see how much it needed) and it required a P60mhz. So THERE! Ha!
Still, the N64 version sucked ass in comparision with the PC version (on better PCs, with GL support).
So... yeah!
Sven0 -
Advertisement
-
But X-Box is a games console. Its not meant to be a PC. Its cheaper and easier and... im not going to get into this argument again
Quake. Yes. First of all, N64 Quake was sh!te. This is entirely beside the point. As I recall Quake would run on certain 486s - i vaguely recall there being 2 sorts, a DX and an SX. It ran on the DX, it didnt on the SX. Also beside the point. (And while we're not on the point, i might mention that i have the copy of PC Format in which the original Quake was reviewedThey said that you needed a 'Monster Machine' to run it - they were talking about a Pentium of almost any sort
)
Anyway, back to the point. Shinji pointed out in his post, Consoles are not the same as PCs! Just because N64 is a higher-tech piece of equipment than a 486 doesnt mean that it will run everything better. Thats like saying that because a DVD player is higher-tech than an oven, it will cook your food just as well (for gods sake, mine does). Id like to see you run Occarina of Time on a 486
. Its all down to compatibility problems, the same as they had porting Q3 to console. Its all about cache and different types of memory and other stuff which im not quite sad enough to care about
Anyway, nuff said for the moment
A0
Advertisement