Cry Havok game.

[blackeye]

Wheres your source?

Exactly, consoles will never ever ever EVER top a PC.

This thread has been done befor. And everyone agreed to disagree. So lets all put it to rest.

 

[Cole]

Actually Alig is quite wrong. The xbox 2 uses a custom ATI Card. Now that custom ATI card, will not have 2 of them. It will not have dual cores. A pc will be able to skip ahead of it. Because of overclocking for one. ATI must have already built the card, thus ATI will build a better one, possibly add dual cores or SLI and there ya go. Faster. The Xbox2 will not feature SLI\Dual Core gfx card.

I have no clue what type of graphics card the Ps3 will have.
Plain, hard facts.

Ok now I agree to disagree.

Overall, UE3 looks better in my opinon.

 

[blackeye]

Just to let you guys know that this game has been in developemnt for probably 2 years now. And when Microsoft sent out the original dev kits they included 9800 pro's. The developemnt team have just been given the videocard that is to be included in the xbox just this month. So as far as we know this screen shot could be from a 9800 pro and not be utilizing the power of the r500.

 

[RTFMy]

Just to let you guys know that this game has been in developemnt for probably 2 years now. And when Microsoft sent out the original dev kits they included 9800 pro's. The developemnt team have just been given the videocard that is to be included in the xbox just this month. So as far as we know this screen shot could be from a 9800 pro and not be utilizing the power of the r500.

There should be NO difference in graphics between a card like a R9800Pro and say a card like the X800XT, they are both very fast cards, but it's not like it just "changes" the way you see the graphics. For instance, you play Half-Life 2 with a Radeon 9800 Pro and a x800XT, you put settings on both cards to high, directx9, 4x AA, 16xAF, there should be no difference in the way your seeing graphics, only frame rates. So I don't know what you guys are trying to prove.

 

[<RJMC>]

There should be NO difference in graphics between a card like a R9800Pro and say a card like the X800XT, they are both very fast cards, but it's not like it just "changes" the way you see the graphics. For instance, you play Half-Life 2 with a Radeon 9800 Pro and a x800XT, you put settings on both cards to high, directx9, 4x AA, 16xAF, there should be no difference in the way your seeing graphics, only frame rates. So I don't know what you guys are trying to prove.

yeah yeah we know you like to hav sex whit your PC now please stop bother the thread are people interesed on this

 

[OCybrManO]

For instance, you play Half-Life 2 with a Radeon 9800 Pro and a x800XT, you put settings on both cards to high, directx9, 4x AA, 16xAF, there should be no difference in the way your seeing graphics, only frame rates.

BINGO. A faster, but no more advanced feature-wise, card just gives you higher framerates. What that means is that you can put more detail into the same scene while keeping it running at the same frame rate. If you were designing a game for a software renderer with DX9 capabilities would you put Far Cry, HL2, or Doom 3's highest level of detail into the game? I would hope not. Sure, it would look the same... but it would run like shit. He didn't mean it would look better by virtue of being on a newer card. He meant it could look better without sacrificing performance.

Also, the argument of "if ATi had a card like that they would just release it for PC too" is false. Do you really think part of the deal wasn't that ATi's custom card would remain exclusive at least for a few months? It has almost always been like that. Consoles have better-looking games for a few months to a year (sometimes more) until PCs catch up (as they always do). It's just the way things are. Deal with it.

 

[RTFMy]

yeah yeah we know you like to hav sex whit your PC now please stop bother the thread are people interesed on this

Your replys are worthless, i've never even seen you make a valid contribution to anything.

When has a console ever been better than a PC? Never, so you think even though it's never happened, Xbox 2 will be better? Keep thinking that, and when you buy your fancy Xbox 2 next year (or whenever the hell it does come out) don't be disapointed when it didn't live up to your expectations, cause by the time this Xbox 2 is out, there will be even better hardware and software for the PC.

 

[OCybrManO]

When has a console ever been better than a PC? Never, so you think even though it's never happened, Xbox 2 will be better? Keep thinking that, and when you buy your fancy Xbox 2 next year (or whenever the hell it does come out) don't be disapointed when it didn't live up to your expectations, cause by the time this Xbox 2 is out, there will be even better hardware for the PC.

Are you serious? The XBox was more powerful than a PC when it first came out. The PS2 was more powerful than a PC when it first came out. Do I really need to continue? Compare the launch titles for each system with the PC games released at the same time. Now, they've been out for 5 years or so and they are the ones lagging behind. It's like a game of leapfrog.

 

[<RJMC>]

Are you serious? The XBox was more powerful than a PC when it first came out. The PS2 was more powerful than a PC when it first came out. Do I really need to continue? Compare the launch titles for each system with the PC games released at the same time. Now, they've been out for 5 years or so and they are the ones lagging behind. It's like a game of leapfrog.

true fact

when PS2 and xbox and gamecube where released they where better graphicaly that any PC games
but in a year (or more) the PC hav reach the same quality

but that dont mean consoles sucks

 

[<RJMC>]

Your replys are worthless, i've never even seen you make a valid contribution to anything.

When has a console ever been better than a PC? Never, so you think even though it's never happened, Xbox 2 will be better? Keep thinking that, and when you buy your fancy Xbox 2 next year (or whenever the hell it does come out) don't be disapointed when it didn't live up to your expectations, cause by the time this Xbox 2 is out, there will be even better hardware and software for the PC.

I will not buy a Xbox2
I will buy a PS3 :E

btw did a consoles murder your family or what?

why all that hate come?

I like all the consoles and my PC (even if is crap) and I dont care whats better,I care about the games

and even if all the videogames will be released in one same supper platform I still will not hate the others platfomrs
cuz that hate looks like a religion

 

[GhostBoi]

Consoles may have better graphics at release, but that does not mean that they are more powerful than current PCs, PCs will obviously always be more powerful, its just that at release Consoles can utilize the fact that they are only developing for one system instead of 1 million potentially deifferent systems.

 

[OCybrManO]

I've seen quite a few PC games able to bring top-of-the-line computers to their knees even at release. Current computers won't play most next-gen games flawlessly on the highest settings. Why? They are being pushed near their limits as is. There is not some vast, untapped pool of PC power that developers aren't using. PC games have different detail settings to allow them to both look great on high end systems and play at a decent framerates on slower computers. Sure, there are PC games that don't use every possible resource available to them... but that's true of every system.

 

[Moto]

EDIT- nevermind, my post had already been discussed to death and is the source of an argument. I just delete it.

 

[Asuka]

Wrong. They will be using graphics cards that won't even be out on the PC at release.

You are very wrong. Console will never be up to par with pc's. Xbox cards are made before it comes out. New and better Pc cards/parts come out every few months. Xboxes come out every 3 years. The pc will have so much more by the time the xbox comes out its not funny.

 

[blackeye]

There should be NO difference in graphics between a card like a R9800Pro and say a card like the X800XT, they are both very fast cards, but it's not like it just "changes" the way you see the graphics. For instance, you play Half-Life 2 with a Radeon 9800 Pro and a x800XT, you put settings on both cards to high, directx9, 4x AA, 16xAF, there should be no difference in the way your seeing graphics, only frame rates. So I don't know what you guys are trying to prove.

No because you could make more complex geomatry and still keep the FPS high. You could have a circle with say 8 subdivisions or something on a radeon 9800 pro and then maybee a cirlce with 16 subdivision on a x800 xt. The circle will look much rounder on the x800 xt.

Sorry but I dont know the correct terms and this is the only way I could think of explaining.

So basically any game for made for a 9800 pro will nto have as complex geomatry as a game made for r500 core. You can acheive a much higher polygon count on the r500 then you can with 9800 pro while still having good Frames per second. And the r500 core is even faster then the x800 xt so once its used to its full potential it will be a beut!

 

[OCybrManO]

You are very wrong. Console will never be up to par with pc's. Xbox cards are made before it comes out. New and better Pc cards/parts come out every few months. Xboxes come out every 3 years. The pc will have so much more by the time the xbox comes out its not funny.

I think you're exaggerating the speed of PC development. New video card lines are now running on a 1.5 year development cycle, if I remember correctly. The only thing you get in that time period is minor upgrades like 9800 to 9800 Pro to 9800 XT... etc. Also, for the reason I underlined in your post, they spend a lot more time and money on developing console technology so that it will be able to last for a few years. It usually takes at least a few months for the console-exclusive technology to move over to the PC (unless it's something more radical, like Sony's new "Cell" architecture... then it takes quite a bit longer, if it ever gets support from hardware manufacturers) and then after that it usually takes at least another several months to be adopted by the PC developers. So, even if the PC could handle it there aren't games that use it. The console developers know ahead of time what their target hardware will be capable of... which goes hand-in-hand with the benefit of having all of your customers on one hardware configuration. Then, there's the issue of PCs having to deal with a bunch of crap in the background that is useless to gaming... whereas consoles are streamlined to get the absolute most possible out of the hardware. PC hardware does get out to a significant lead by the end of the console's life cycle... but then they go through the whole process again. I'll still have a gaming PC... and I'll still buy consoles... because I don't want to miss out on any truly great games based on some irrational hatred of a particular block of plastic, silicon, metal, etc.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Wow, we should get back to the Cry Havock discussion that this thread was created for, rather than continue disputing whether the Xbox 2 will be better than the PC and the end of next year. Arguing either point with a PC fanboy and an Xbox fanboy (and yes, if you avidly support one to the point of debasing others views you are considered a fanboy) is like discussing abortion with a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer, your not going to convince either that one side of the argument is correct.

Sheesh

 

[RTFMy]

No because you could make more complex geomatry and still keep the FPS high. You could have a circle with say 8 subdivisions or something on a radeon 9800 pro and then maybee a cirlce with 16 subdivision on a x800 xt. The circle will look much rounder on the x800 xt.

Sorry but I dont know the correct terms and this is the only way I could think of explaining.

So basically any game for made for a 9800 pro will nto have as complex geomatry as a game made for r500 core. You can acheive a much higher polygon count on the r500 then you can with 9800 pro while still having good Frames per second. And the r500 core is even faster then the x800 xt so once its used to its full potential it will be a beut!

Your still overlooking what I am trying to say, it just won't happen for a console to be ahead of a PC, I could cry just thinking about it ;(

 

[OCybrManO]

Your still overlooking what I am trying to say, it just won't happen for a console to be ahead of a PC, I could cry just thinking about it ;(

Wow. Even though it has happened several times before there are still some people that think it can't happen. People never fail to amaze me.

 

[<RJMC>]

Your still overlooking what I am trying to say, it just won't happen for a console to be ahead of a PC, I could cry just thinking about it ;(

well start to cry
and lets stop this discusson and lets talk about that game cry havok

do someone know something of the storyline?

 

[blackeye]

Your still overlooking what I am trying to say, it just won't happen for a console to be ahead of a PC, I could cry just thinking about it ;(

No i was pointing out that a game made for the x800 xt is going to look better then a game made for a 9800 pro.

 

[PvtRyan]

To get ontopic again (HINT!): Jesus Christ, enough with the HDR blooms please. The lenseflare of 2005.

 

[blackeye]

HDRI can drastically improve the look of a scence if used right.

Look at some comparisons.
http://www.the123d.com/tutorial/general/hdri.html
http://www.hdri.at/en/hdri_en.htm (click at the link at bottem of page. HDRI vs LDRI)

HDRI is another step in bringing photrealistic graphics to videogames.

If you think that HDRI suck just because of the far cry patch then I think you should look at it from a broader perspective. The HDRI in far cry was added in after the game shipped and wasnt really ever meant to be part of the game. It is too bright. But if you want you can go into the console and adjust the brightness setting to your liking. Most of the HDRI images you see on the internet arent that great either, but when you properly implement HDRI the results can be stunning.

 

[The Dark Elf]

HDRI can drastically improve the look of a scence if used right.

Look at some comparisons.
http://www.the123d.com/tutorial/general/hdri.html
http://www.hdri.at/en/hdri_en.htm (click at the link at bottem of page. HDRI vs LDRI)

HDRI is another step in bringing photrealistic graphics to videogames.

If you think that HDRI suck just because of the far cry patch then I think you should look at it from a broader perspective. The HDRI in far cry was added in after the game shipped and wasnt really ever meant to be part of the game. It is too bright. But if you want you can go into the console and adjust the brightness setting to your liking. Most of the HDRI images you see on the internet arent that great either, but when you properly implement HDRI the results can be stunning.

Your calling it HDRI when the term used for the games is HDR

HDRI - high dynamic range images (a method of storing the HD range in an image)

HDRI lighting - using a HDR image to light a scene to match the image in question without needing the use of regular lights. Often used with radiosity for a better effect.

HDR - high dynamic range, general method of lighting, eg: in realtime.

bloom - the effect used to make HDR effects visible to the human eye when viewed on a monitor (which is an LDR device)

 

[EVIL]

I think the artwork suxx, a great engine that can render great looking effects and stuff does not guarrantee a good looking game if the artwork cant keep up. just look at the first screen, its ugly. sure a mosnter is supposedd to look ugly but its ugly, the whole render, the blur the.. mouth with the teath that is lit wrong.. yugh. glad real gamestudio's are able to pull out the max out of those engines.