if a game took the Xbox to its full potencial, wat kind of graphics would you expect? and another thing, would Xbox have a chance against PS3?
Printable View
if a game took the Xbox to its full potencial, wat kind of graphics would you expect? and another thing, would Xbox have a chance against PS3?
Graphics with blue in them! Lots of blue. And some green maybe. Red would require the Red Upgrade Card.
Sorry, but your question doesn't really make sense in terms of games programming. Somebody could write a photorealistic raytracer for the X-Box and it would be pumping out fantastic images - but obviously those wouldn't be playable. Somebody could write a really pretty polygon shifting algorithm coupled with nice models. Somebody could make a 2D game with really incredible artwork.
You can only describe it in terms of what people might do with the hardware provided. There is no "full-potential" as such.
I think we will see the X-BOX's limits on Doom 3.
It is too early to say what will happen when PS3 will be released.
xbox wont be able to handle doom3 - not unless they dumb it down like they did deus ex invisible wars.... hell most gamming machines will have trouble running doom3 - I have an athlon 1600+ and a GF FX 5200, and the demo wont run on this! XBOX couldn't even attempt it! C'mon a 700Mhz chip, coupled with a GF3 class video core.....NAH - They will seriously have to dumb it down a lot..... xbox is seeing its full potential, think about the Frame rate issues they had with HALO before the box even came out...
Its a weak machine and its already being pushed too hard.
You can get much better game performance per hardware on a console, as certain optimisations can be made because the hardware is always the same (and specifically designed for gaming). Raw processor speed figures are pretty meaningless in this context.
ok, so you are going to try and say that an xbox running a stripped copy of Windows 2000 at 700Mhz with a GF3 equivelent video card, is going to run a game that as of yet Requires a MINIMUM of an ATI Radeon 9800PRO?
No offense your nuts if you think thats the case (as with Doom3 - how do you think that "demo" got leaked last year to start with - ATI was the only powerhouse that could pull it off - in other words ATI did it to boost sales)
Please bear with me here, I am not asking for much, just for people stop comparing PC games to console games, they don't/can't compare. they have to dumb down console games(in graphic terms anyways), TV's arent as sharp to start with. whats the point in having Deus EX running 1280x1024 with and AA on a tv? on a PC however, everything shows up at those resolutions, they are made that way. no matter what you do there will be a difference.
I have nothing against Xbox itself, just those who think it compares to the real PC. (and for those who dont classify the xbox a pc - think about it - a PIII@700Mhz, Nvidia 21 Graphics chip, USB controllers, IDE harddrive, and DVD player, stripped copy of Windows 2000 - people give it up, it is an expensive OLD computer)
I'm sorry, but you've already proved elsewhere that you don't know what you're talking about.
Try reading what I said again:
You can get much better game performance per hardware| on a console, as certain optimisations can be made because the hardware is always the same (and specifically designed for gaming). Raw processor speed figures are pretty meaningless in this context.
If you feel the need to take that and start waffling on about unrelated nonsense, restate (as I just did) that you shouldn't compare consoles with PCs, and then go ahead to do exactly that yourself... well fine, but not in this thread. Please, for the love of all that is sacred, go play somewhere else.
I just realised that you're the guy who pretends to know about stuff. I remember the "analogue vs. digital" thing very clearly. Here's a good rule: People who spread misinformation get banned for a day each time they do so. I suggest that you don't do that here.
ok, let me put it this way, xbox is a Microsoft WINDOWS based machine, ALSO based upon DIRECTX
It is a PC in a small box, and it still wont handle the newest games properly, they still had framerate issues with HALO before it ever got released (HALO was originally designed for PC BTW, and was going to use what was state of the art hardware at the time) and you think it will take on the latest and greatest gaming creations.... thats not misinformation, thats you trying to prove you are right. and you are wrong again, you can only optimize to a point, after that, its still back to the raw power of the box
It's not quite a small PC, it's just a similar architecture. Believe me, no matter how much your fellow Linux zealots would like to think, Microsoft wouldn't be naive enough to not optimise and specialise the hardware somewhat.
Did I mention LINUX? NO Moron.
I said the Xbox SUX they didn't optimize that well, that should have been obvious when they had so many problems getting halo to run right.... you are a sad person with no life waz, grow up
Yes, you're familiar with the X-Box hardware I'm sure, what with you not even being able to figure out what video RAM actually is. You're not intelligent enough to lie, so fuck off.
He'll be back in a month for a few hours. :)
More than a month - I suspended him for 50 days 4 minutes before you did :)
Xbox Specs
thats got the compleste list of what it will do...
No, that's a list of what it is.
Lemon is right.Games optimized for Xbox would make it capable of running some amazing things for its low specs.But this isn't that easy,and game companies don't really care that much to optimize a game fully on a specific console.So suckthismeat has some sense in what he claims.Anyway the optimization can only get up to a point.After that the consoles' specs make the difference or not.
OK this is quit meaningless,but I'll post it anyway.
Well, yeah, amongst the consoles, hardware is going to make a big difference in how powerful it will be, and how well it will run games. Lemon is saying that it doesn't make sense to compare consoles to PCs, not that it doesn't make sense to compare console x to console y.
And that a little hardware goes a lot further on a console, where you can optimize for it.
But how many manufacturers, who are making the games for multiple platforms (PS2, GC, Xbox, PC) are going to optimize for every platform they run on. It is easier just to make the game and find a quick easy way to shift to the next platform using cross complilers or whatever... such as Borlands cross compiler that (if memory servers) will build to Windows/Mac/Linux using one set of code (supposedly and it may only be windows/linux or windows/mac - not too sure, I don't use it myself)Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon@Mar 19 2004, 08:01 AM
And that a little hardware goes a lot further on a console, where you can optimize for it.
I think cross-platform games are usually ported properly between console platforms by separate teams.
Quote:
It is easier just to make the game and find a quick easy way to shift to the next platform using cross complilers
Both happen.The more usual is the first one because you save more money with it.Quote:
I think cross-platform games are usually ported properly between console platforms by separate teams.
That's why although X-BOX and GC are better than the PS2 the multi-platform games are almost the same.
