Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (
More info?)
"theOne" <theOneOne@dodgeit.com> wrote in message news:yow8e.79
> well, we're talking about you guys living in the past yes. But you guys
> are saying there are no more returns and I'm pointing out why I think
> there are returns, both now, and in the future.
Like I said, I never claimed anything about the future. I have high hopes.
> > Yes, I can tell you that games in 2004 were not a big deal.
>
> Wrong. But hey, you know more than millions of pocketbooks and a
> thriving industry, I'll leave it at that
"Thriving industry". Sure. The PC games market is getting its ass kicked
more than ever by a home console market it used to dismiss as a toy market.
Its untouchable graphics used to be its trump card, but now it survives on
games like The Sims--the best-selling PC game of what, the past 5 years,
every year?. Harldly a graphical triumph, is it? The other big-selling
genre is online-only games, another genre weak in the graphics department.
The mod community, among other things, makes sure theres still a userbase
there, and there are still those who cling to the need to constantly
upgrade, but it's lost its luster.
> They run
> > perfectly well and look nice on machines 2 or 3 years old. The Xbox
version
> > of Doom 3 is a reasonable facsimile, more than reasonable, and the Xbox
has
> > the same specs as my old 98 machine in the corner.
>
> Hardly, the xbox is a much more streamlined GPU/CPU architecture,
> without the burden of a completely bloated OS>
Okay, but it's still 5 year old hardware, and it's doing a pretty good job
of running a game you claim is a graphical highlight of 2004. Once upon a
time, that could not happen. Once upon a time, the big PC games had to wait
for console release for the next round of consoles--and still be stripped
down. Now the PC is the one getting most of the ports, and you're lucky if
they have any enhancements at all.
> There's no reason to
> > upgrade when your machine will run a game well and look good.
>
> Dude, you rock on my talking about the future but you continually rehash
> the *same* past arguments. I've illustrated many reasons why people
> upgrade, why I upgrade. Not too get the lastest and greatest game to run
> at 16x12 so much but that I simply couldn't accomplish my day to day
> usage on the PC you depict.
You couldn't accomplish what? What do you do every day that wouldn't work
on a 2 year old machine? And how did you do your job, or hobby, or
whatever, 2 years ago? What you really mean is it would take longer. I
don't think anyone is trying to say it wouldn't.
And people do upgrade, sure. But not as soon as they used to. The cycle
has gotten longer. And there's a reason why new PC prices have come down so
far. It's simply because the cheaper hardware these days is perfectly
capable. The price-to-performance ratio has fallen further back from the
cutting edge, because that edge isn't as sharp as it once was.
> This conversation is pointless. Your thinking so backwards, I can't even
> comprehend what you're saying. You win
I can't comprehend you either...did you mean "you're" or did you forget the
word "is"?
> I suppose HDTV is a joke compared to the vibrancy of NTSC too huh?
Now you're being ridiculous. Who ever said that old technology was superior
to new technology? Nobody. But HDTV _is_ having a tough time selling
itself.
> People not using the latest graphics hardware
> > are "missing out", all right--missing out on getting ripped off.
>
> See man, its comments like that that make me get personal, I'm sorry.
> But when someone sez something like that, it would only seem you're only
> lacking in the pocketbook and thus trying to rationalize that by
> implying everything is a rip off. I mean really? I don't live by the
> lastest and greatest graphics card but at the same time, my system is
> def. not weak. You can't take that money with you when you die
Who mentioned money? Not me. When I say "ripped off", I'm talking about
buying a piece of hardware that sits and rots. There's nothing out there
that won't run very well on hardware two or three iterations back from the
latest and greatest. It used to be that you had to make big sacrifices if
you didn't have very new hardware. Now you don't. Just some small ones, or
nothing at all.
> > By the way, Half-Life 2 is a poor example of graphical advancement. Far
Cry
> > and Doom 3 look nice (although Doom's 3ft x 3ft rooms are a sad
compromise),
> > but Half-Life 2 looks like a retrofit of a 5 year old PC FPS. By that,
I
> > mean it has stark, barren environments, flat walls, boring architecture,
and
> > repetition, repetition, repetition. I could build these environments in
the
> > original UT editor...........
but you're not becuase you're too good for that huh? Gimme a break!
> You downplay these great achievements? You sound like an american
> programmer. Don't get mad that your job was outsourced to Apu in
> Bangladesh for $100 a week. OOps. Am I getting personal again?
What great achievements? Doom 3? Pathetic compared to its legacy.
Half-Life 2? Should've been out 3 years ago. It looks like they finished
the levels that far back, and spent the last 3 years working on the physics
engine. Which is impressive, but we're talking about graphics. And they
aren't.
> Metroid Prime
> > has nicer geometry than any of those games--everything in MP is
individually
> > modelled, and never repeated except for crates and things. There are no
> > flat, boring walls in MP, no rooms made with cookie-cutter parts. HL2
has
> > nothing but.
>
> I hate that game
Fine. A lot of people hate art.
> > We're not talking about the same timeframe. You're talking about DDR2,
I'm
> > talking about all the quick advances leading up to that. RAM
advancement is
> > one area that hasn't stalled lately.
>
> not the same timeframe and than you say lately in the same paragraph? Is
> DDR2 not lately? I've having a hard time keeping with this conversation.
I bet you are. Please note that you were the one who described DDR2
as...what was it, a joke? Not me. Then read everything again and it should
make more sense.
> not really.I'm really just pointing out that a PIII can't do everything
> a higher end system can.
I never said it could. But actually, it probably can do almost everything,
just slower. And in some cases, not that much slower.
> > I'm talking about playing games. You're talking about benchmarks, or
> > running a dozen programs at once, he's talking about real life usage.
>
> Benchmarks? I'M talking about real life usage in multitasking.
Like I said, a dozen programs at once. I recall you made a big list that
was a bit of a stretch. Your computer can do a dozen things at once, but
you can't.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram