Quake IV announced for Xbox 360

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

So here's the problem PC gamers like me will soon face -- do we buy a
$400 video card to play Quake IV on an aging PC, or do we buy a $300
Xbox 360 which will effectively have that same card (and a lot more) in
it already?


Posted on Monday, May 16 @ 10:59:24 PDT
id Software announced today that it is bringing QUAKE 4 to the Xbox
360. Currently in development by Raven Software in cooperation with id
Software, the game will be debuted at the E3 Expo in Activision's booth
#1224 in the South Hall on May 18 at the Los Angeles Convention Center.
58 answers Last reply
More about quake announced xbox
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    arcanastream@yahoo.com wrote:
    > So here's the problem PC gamers like me will soon face -- do we buy a
    > $400 video card to play Quake IV on an aging PC, or do we buy a $300
    > Xbox 360 which will effectively have that same card (and a lot more)
    > in it already?


    If you already have a computer that will play Doom 3 it will most likely
    play Quake IV. Plus the price of the 360 has not been set yet so it could be
    more than $300.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:12:48 -0600, "Hank the Rapper"
    <xflopgoon@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:

    >arcanastream@yahoo.com wrote:
    >> So here's the problem PC gamers like me will soon face -- do we buy a
    >> $400 video card to play Quake IV on an aging PC, or do we buy a $300
    >> Xbox 360 which will effectively have that same card (and a lot more)
    >> in it already?
    >
    >
    >If you already have a computer that will play Doom 3 it will most likely
    >play Quake IV. Plus the price of the 360 has not been set yet so it could be
    >more than $300.
    >

    I doubt what i've read on Reuters, AP is official but they're saying
    the XBOX 360 will retail at either $399 or $499 - and whether you're a
    PC gamer or strictly consoles.. that's a lot of $, not to mention how
    much the games will actually cost..

    toadie
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    > ...that's a lot of $, not to mention how much the games will actually
    > cost..

    True, but you can rent console games.

    - f_f
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Here's an interview with the guys developing Quake IV:

    IGN: What are some of the interesting graphic tricks or techniques
    you're finding on Xbox 360 that are either different or better than on
    the current PCs? And how will these show up in the game?

    Tim: The great thing about the 360 it has really awesome hardware that
    gives the console guys the full set of features. Normally, as a console
    player you only get half the features, but with 360, you get everything
    that you get with a $3,000 PC, but now you get it on a console. Console
    gamers have been envious of the raw power of a PC, but they now have
    it. For us, it's great. Now we can develop the games on both systems
    and make sure the experiences are the same thing. We don't have to
    short change the console gamer now. We can do all the technical things:
    Specular lighting, bump mapping, normal mapping, and it just doesn't
    cost you $3,000 to see those games running.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    faster_framerates wrote:

    > True, but you can rent console games.

    *hugs Gamefly account*
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    arcanastream@yahoo.com wrote:

    > So here's the problem PC gamers like me will soon face -- do we buy a
    > $400 video card to play Quake IV on an aging PC, or do we buy a $300
    > Xbox 360 which will effectively have that same card (and a lot more)
    > in it already?

    The XBox 360 effectively has the same card? *LOL*

    FYI: the XBox GPU is just a bit faster than an ATI X700 (which is
    basically a Radeon 9600 with PCIe interface) which hardly costs 300USD
    these days. MS claims the Xbox 360 to have a bandwidth of 22.4GB/s to
    the GDDR3 memory (for comparison: a GeforceFX 5950 already does
    30.4GB/s, a 300USD GF6800GT does even much more!) and a pixel fillrate
    performance of 16 bill. samples/sec with 4xAA. But it's using only 4
    samples/pixel so the effective pixel fill rate is ~4 Gigapixel/sec. The
    polygone fillrate of the XBox 360 is around 500 Mill. triangles/sec. An
    ATI X700 does 3.4 Gigapixel/sec and 637.5 Mill. polygones/sec.
    So it's more than fast enough for the dull PAL or even duller NTSC
    resolution, but probably not fast enough to provide steadily high frame
    rates at HDTV resolution (1080i) in all situations...

    I really wonder why always when a new console appears some morons are
    x-posting to dozens of unrelated newsgroups and praying how fast and
    great that new console will be and that it will run everything other
    into the ground. It's incredible how shallow-minded some people are,
    believing that this 300USD concole will do miracles regarding
    performance. I have an XBox myself, and I also had PSX and PS2. There
    _always_ has been a hype that this new console delivers mindblasting
    gfx, and _always_ the results where average at best. Not to forget the
    limitations with input devices and the much higher price for console
    games that suffer from a lot of bottlenecks due to console
    limitations...

    Benjamin
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Benjamin, what about the CPU the 360 has? How does it stack up against the
    highest-end PC CPU's?

    --
    Remove nospam to email
    "Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
    news:3euepcF4ncjgU1@individual.net...
    > arcanastream@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    >> So here's the problem PC gamers like me will soon face -- do we buy a
    >> $400 video card to play Quake IV on an aging PC, or do we buy a $300
    >> Xbox 360 which will effectively have that same card (and a lot more)
    >> in it already?
    >
    > The XBox 360 effectively has the same card? *LOL*
    >
    > FYI: the XBox GPU is just a bit faster than an ATI X700 (which is
    > basically a Radeon 9600 with PCIe interface) which hardly costs 300USD
    > these days. MS claims the Xbox 360 to have a bandwidth of 22.4GB/s to the
    > GDDR3 memory (for comparison: a GeforceFX 5950 already does 30.4GB/s, a
    > 300USD GF6800GT does even much more!) and a pixel fillrate performance of
    > 16 bill. samples/sec with 4xAA. But it's using only 4 samples/pixel so the
    > effective pixel fill rate is ~4 Gigapixel/sec. The polygone fillrate of
    > the XBox 360 is around 500 Mill. triangles/sec. An ATI X700 does 3.4
    > Gigapixel/sec and 637.5 Mill. polygones/sec.
    > So it's more than fast enough for the dull PAL or even duller NTSC
    > resolution, but probably not fast enough to provide steadily high frame
    > rates at HDTV resolution (1080i) in all situations...
    >
    > I really wonder why always when a new console appears some morons are
    > x-posting to dozens of unrelated newsgroups and praying how fast and great
    > that new console will be and that it will run everything other into the
    > ground. It's incredible how shallow-minded some people are, believing that
    > this 300USD concole will do miracles regarding performance. I have an XBox
    > myself, and I also had PSX and PS2. There _always_ has been a hype that
    > this new console delivers mindblasting gfx, and _always_ the results where
    > average at best. Not to forget the limitations with input devices and the
    > much higher price for console games that suffer from a lot of bottlenecks
    > due to console limitations...
    >
    > Benjamin
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    <arcanastream@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1116287870.374488.162520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > So here's the problem PC gamers like me will soon face -- do we buy a
    > $400 video card to play Quake IV on an aging PC, or do we buy a $300
    > Xbox 360 which will effectively have that same card (and a lot more) in
    > it already?

    No, they aren't the same. Here's the problem you really mean: money. I'll
    stick with my PC and pay the difference. The new X-Box 360 when it is
    released in a year or 6 months or whatever will still be trashed by the PC I
    have sitting right in front of me right now.

    And hey, I do love my Gamecube (RE4 was awesome!!!), but I'd be stupid to
    think my PC couldn't outperform it. No reason you shouldn't be happy if
    mommy and daddy won't kick out the bucks for a killer PC rig, though.
    You're X-Box 360 will do fine.

    turk
    --
    "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
    the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
    and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
    at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L.
    Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    <arcanastream@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1116351986.336762.274930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Here's an interview with the guys developing Quake IV:
    >
    > IGN: What are some of the interesting graphic tricks or techniques
    > you're finding on Xbox 360 that are either different or better than on
    > the current PCs? And how will these show up in the game?
    >
    > Tim: The great thing about the 360 it has really awesome hardware that
    > gives the console guys the full set of features. Normally, as a console
    > player you only get half the features, but with 360, you get everything
    > that you get with a $3,000 PC, but now you get it on a console. Console
    > gamers have been envious of the raw power of a PC, but they now have
    > it. For us, it's great. Now we can develop the games on both systems
    > and make sure the experiences are the same thing. We don't have to
    > short change the console gamer now. We can do all the technical things:
    > Specular lighting, bump mapping, normal mapping, and it just doesn't
    > cost you $3,000 to see those games running.
    >

    A little scary that 'Tim' doesn't know it doesn't cost $3000 now...
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On 17 May 2005 10:46:26 -0700, arcanastream@yahoo.com wrote:

    >Here's an interview with the guys developing Quake IV:
    >
    >IGN: What are some of the interesting graphic tricks or techniques
    >you're finding on Xbox 360 that are either different or better than on
    >the current PCs? And how will these show up in the game?
    >
    >Tim: The great thing about the 360 it has really awesome hardware that
    >gives the console guys the full set of features. Normally, as a console
    >player you only get half the features, but with 360, you get everything
    >that you get with a $3,000 PC, but now you get it on a console. Console
    >gamers have been envious of the raw power of a PC, but they now have
    >it. For us, it's great. Now we can develop the games on both systems
    >and make sure the experiences are the same thing. We don't have to
    >short change the console gamer now. We can do all the technical things:
    >Specular lighting, bump mapping, normal mapping, and it just doesn't
    >cost you $3,000 to see those games running.

    $3,000 is just a teeny bit high for a PC. Looking at the sales slip
    for my PC I bought a couple years ago, I paid $1,024 plus tax for a P4
    2.0GHz. I got a shitty video card with it(GEFORCE MX400), so I
    repalced with a Radeon 9800Pro for $300. I kept my 17 inch monitor
    from my P2 400Ghz.

    So brand new PC: $1024 + $300 = $1324
    $1324 + tax($79.44) = $1403.44
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:54:15 -0600, "Hank the Rapper"
    <xflopgoon@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:

    >Plus there is no computer that you
    >can buy for $500 that will run Doom 3 reasonably

    http://www.oemexpress.com/

    A-Speed 2300+ sells for 299.99.

    An ATI/Sapphire Radeon X300SE 128MB PCI-E sells for 79.99. (Or you can
    grab the 59.99 model.)

    Subtotal is: $379.98.
    Sales tax (15%) brings total to $436.98.

    Want more memory? But Crucial 235MB DDR400 for $39.99.
    The total cost is $482.97.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Raymond Martineau wrote:

    > http://www.oemexpress.com/
    >
    > A-Speed 2300+ sells for 299.99.
    >
    > An ATI/Sapphire Radeon X300SE 128MB PCI-E sells for 79.99. (Or you
    > can grab the 59.99 model.)
    >
    > Subtotal is: $379.98.
    > Sales tax (15%) brings total to $436.98.
    >
    > Want more memory? But Crucial 235MB DDR400 for $39.99.
    > The total cost is $482.97.

    That's nice, will it actually work reasonably? Cheap computers look nice on
    paper but when you run them that's an entirely different story.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Doug wrote:

    > Benjamin, what about the CPU the 360 has? How does it stack up
    > against the highest-end PC CPU's?

    Well, the XBox 360 uses a 3.2GHz 64bit PowerPC processor with three cpu
    cores, very similar to the PPC970FX used in Apples G5 computers. MS
    claims it does 9 bill. Dot Product operations per second (one operation
    per clock cycle and per Altivec unit). One Dot Product operation usually
    consists of 5 fp operations (two multiplications and one addition),
    which leads to a theoretical peak performance of 45 GFLOP/s for the
    3-core XBox processor.
    For comparison: a single core P4 3.8GHz does 15.2 GFLOP/s, and one of
    the two 2.7GHz PPC970FX processors in Apples top-of-the-line Powermac G5
    does 21.1 GFLOP/s.

    So performance-wise the XBox isn't really ahead of what's available in
    the PC world, despite the claims and dreams of XBox fanatics around the
    usenet. It uses current technologies which are cheap due to mass
    production. Of course the combination of three cores gives it a good
    theoretical performance for a ~300USD product. But it's architecture
    also limits it's use, so it's not really comparable to a "real"
    computer...

    Benjamin
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Walter Mitty wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > How do you link Doom 3 and Quake 4? The fact that they use the same
    > engine reflects on the game play content??


    Unfortunately, yes. The Doom 3 engine isn't very good for large areas
    or large numbers of enemies. That means Quake 4 has little choice but
    to be a Doom 3 type experience...
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    saint wrote:
    > On 17 May 2005 10:46:26 -0700, arcanastream@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Here's an interview with the guys developing Quake IV:
    >>
    >>IGN: What are some of the interesting graphic tricks or techniques
    >>you're finding on Xbox 360 that are either different or better than on
    >>the current PCs? And how will these show up in the game?
    >>
    >>Tim: The great thing about the 360 it has really awesome hardware that
    >>gives the console guys the full set of features. Normally, as a console
    >>player you only get half the features, but with 360, you get everything
    >>that you get with a $3,000 PC, but now you get it on a console. Console
    >>gamers have been envious of the raw power of a PC, but they now have
    >>it. For us, it's great. Now we can develop the games on both systems
    >>and make sure the experiences are the same thing. We don't have to
    >>short change the console gamer now. We can do all the technical things:
    >>Specular lighting, bump mapping, normal mapping, and it just doesn't
    >>cost you $3,000 to see those games running.
    >
    >
    > $3,000 is just a teeny bit high for a PC. Looking at the sales slip
    > for my PC I bought a couple years ago, I paid $1,024 plus tax for a P4
    > 2.0GHz. I got a shitty video card with it(GEFORCE MX400), so I
    > repalced with a Radeon 9800Pro for $300. I kept my 17 inch monitor
    > from my P2 400Ghz.

    But the XBox 360 has *three* 3 GHz PPC cores, and comes in a nice small
    package. I don't know of a comparable PC.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Smart Feet" <smartfeet@yourshoes.com> wrote in message
    news:9Rtie.28437$i1.68@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
    > Walter Mitty wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> How do you link Doom 3 and Quake 4? The fact that they use the same
    >> engine reflects on the game play content??
    >
    >
    >
    > Unfortunately, yes. The Doom 3 engine isn't very good for large areas or
    > large numbers of enemies. That means Quake 4 has little choice but to be
    > a Doom 3 type experience...

    I know you shouldn't put too much store by what gaming magazines say but
    PCGamer says "the new game defies some of the assumptions made about that
    engine; that it couldn't handle outdoor areas; more than a few characters on
    screen at once, or vehicles. It can do all these things and more". Q4 is
    being developed by Raven too - not ID. I have hopes for it (on PC not
    X-Box).
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:32:28 +0100, "Shawk"
    <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:

    > Q4 is
    >being developed by Raven too - not ID.

    Yea, so? Raven did SOFII which is a POS.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly arcanastream@yahoo.com Spake Unto All:

    >Here's an interview with the guys developing Quake IV:
    >
    >IGN: What are some of the interesting graphic tricks or techniques
    >you're finding on Xbox 360 that are either different or better than on
    >the current PCs? And how will these show up in the game?
    >
    >Tim: The great thing about the 360 it has really awesome hardware that
    >gives the console guys the full set of features. Normally, as a console
    >player you only get half the features, but with 360, you get everything
    >that you get with a $3,000 PC, but now you get it on a console. Console
    >gamers have been envious of the raw power of a PC, but they now have
    >it. For us, it's great. Now we can develop the games on both systems
    >and make sure the experiences are the same thing. We don't have to
    >short change the console gamer now. We can do all the technical things:
    >Specular lighting, bump mapping, normal mapping, and it just doesn't
    >cost you $3,000 to see those games running.

    Translation: we're envious of the phat l00t being amassed by the
    companies developing for consoles, we're tired of coding 10x more
    advanced games for 1/10th of the revenue, so we're jumping ship and
    will in the future be coding for console first too. Like everyone
    else.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Smart Feet <smartfeet@yourshoes.com> Spake Unto All:

    >> How do you link Doom 3 and Quake 4? The fact that they use the same
    >> engine reflects on the game play content??
    >
    >Unfortunately, yes. The Doom 3 engine isn't very good for large areas
    >or large numbers of enemies. That means Quake 4 has little choice but
    >to be a Doom 3 type experience...

    Rubbish. Reduce lighting quality and number of polygons, and you can
    have as big areas as you'd like.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 00:24:45 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
    <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >Thusly Smart Feet <smartfeet@yourshoes.com> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>> How do you link Doom 3 and Quake 4? The fact that they use the same
    >>> engine reflects on the game play content??
    >>
    >>Unfortunately, yes. The Doom 3 engine isn't very good for large areas
    >>or large numbers of enemies. That means Quake 4 has little choice but
    >>to be a Doom 3 type experience...
    >
    >Rubbish. Reduce lighting quality and number of polygons, and you can
    >have as big areas as you'd like.

    The engine needs to be designed to handle those large areas.

    I remember an experiment with Descent 2 that ateemtped to create an
    "out-door" environment that looked like terrain. The framerate was sub 20
    on a modern computer - which is a serious performance hit. (Could be
    accelerated with openGL, but that wasn't available at the time.)
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    x-no-archive: yes

    Raymond Martineau wrote:

    >> Plus there is no computer that you
    >> can buy for $500 that will run Doom 3 reasonably
    >
    > http://www.oemexpress.com/
    >
    > A-Speed 2300+ sells for 299.99.
    >
    > An ATI/Sapphire Radeon X300SE 128MB PCI-E sells for 79.99. (Or you
    > can grab the 59.99 model.)
    >
    > Subtotal is: $379.98.
    > Sales tax (15%) brings total to $436.98.
    >
    > Want more memory? But Crucial 235MB DDR400 for $39.99.
    > The total cost is $482.97.

    i truly disliked your posts in the past
    you were one of those posters i couldn't keep from flaming
    i thought you were intelectual, snobbish and arrogant
    but lately you have been writing some very good posts
    this is very good!
    thank you!

    --
    post made in a steam-free computer
    i said "NO" to valve and steam
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    x-no-archive: yes

    saint wrote:
    > As far as
    packaging goes, I suggest
    > you argue it out with Steamkiller. He is our
    > resident package inspector.

    *snort* haha..

    --
    Best Regards, mattchu
    np: Radio 4 - How the Stars Got Crossed.mp3
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 17 May 2005 22:54:17 -0600, timeOday
    <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:


    >> $3,000 is just a teeny bit high for a PC. Looking at the sales slip
    >> for my PC I bought a couple years ago, I paid $1,024 plus tax for a P4
    >> 2.0GHz. I got a shitty video card with it(GEFORCE MX400), so I
    >> repalced with a Radeon 9800Pro for $300. I kept my 17 inch monitor
    >> from my P2 400Ghz.
    >
    >But the XBox 360 has *three* 3 GHz PPC cores, and comes in a nice small
    >package. I don't know of a comparable PC.

    I wasn't comparing the price point or specs between the PC and the
    XBOX360. Comparing price point, the PC is gonna lose because we're
    just talking gaming and unless the XBOX360 sells for $500 the 360
    makes more sense financially. Comparing specs the 360 is gonna lose
    because the PC is upgradable. Even if the 360 is comparable to a PC at
    launch, the PC will quickly overtake the 360 specs. As far as
    packaging goes, I suggest you argue it out with Steamkiller. He is our
    resident package inspector.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly timeOday <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> Spake Unto All:

    >But the XBox 360 has *three* 3 GHz PPC cores, and comes in a nice small
    >package. I don't know of a comparable PC.

    FFS, I can't believe you guys are actually buying the pre-release hype
    from Microsoft and Sony. You _know_ it's all marketing bullshit and
    hyperbole, it _always_ is prior, and it's there to generate buzz
    before the launch of a console. MS and Sony spends tens if not
    hundreds of millions of dollars to create pre-release hype!

    It's all happened before, it'll all happen again in five years time
    when the next gen console is due for release.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Nada <nada_says@hotmail.com_killspam> Spake Unto All:

    >The lonegevity of that card is surprisingly good.

    PC technological advancement has slowed because games are now being
    developed to run on consoles primarily, and released for PC as an
    afterthought. Few if any games push the PC hardware envelope, as
    they're primarily made to be run on a 720MHz mobile celeron with a
    Geforce3MX and a total of 64MB RAM (Xbox).

    We'll see a marked jump in the quality and hardware req's of games
    once the PS3 and XBox2 is out, though. Then a new lull.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:20:21 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
    <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:


    >PC technological advancement has slowed because games are now being
    >developed to run on consoles primarily, and released for PC as an
    >afterthought. Few if any games push the PC hardware envelope, as
    >they're primarily made to be run on a 720MHz mobile celeron with a
    >Geforce3MX and a total of 64MB RAM (Xbox).

    Yea, I'm surprised how well Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory looks and runs
    on my P4 3.0ghz R9800pro. It looks better than the first two in the
    series but runs even smoother - no need for an upgrqade for this game.
    Good job on the graphics coding. Too bad they didn't do such a bang up
    job with Swat4 though as that game has some slow down problems at
    times but I think it is AI (cpu) related and not graphics. I see an
    AMD64 3800+ and new vid card in my near future when the prices are a
    bit more favourable.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    shoe gazer wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:32:28 +0100, "Shawk"
    > <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Q4 is
    >>being developed by Raven too - not ID.
    >
    >
    > Yea, so? Raven did SOFII which is a POS.

    I thought SOFII was very enjoyable : good old fashioned FPS with some
    great scenarios.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:11:47 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
    wrote:


    >I thought SOFII was very enjoyable : good old fashioned FPS with some
    >great scenarios.

    Not my cup of tea.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    > Thusly Nada <nada_says@hotmail.com_killspam> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >
    >>The lonegevity of that card is surprisingly good.
    >
    >
    > PC technological advancement has slowed because games are now being
    > developed to run on consoles primarily, and released for PC as an
    > afterthought. Few if any games push the PC hardware envelope, as
    > they're primarily made to be run on a 720MHz mobile celeron with a
    > Geforce3MX and a total of 64MB RAM (Xbox).
    >
    > We'll see a marked jump in the quality and hardware req's of games
    > once the PS3 and XBox2 is out, though. Then a new lull.

    It may give the gamer advantage of saving some money for the actual
    games instead of spending hard earned cash into PC hardware every year,
    but spending that cash has been another hobby of mine. I see my rig as
    a Hot Rod that has to be tweaked every year and this brings a certain
    chrarm to the PC gaming that I can't get from a piece of green box in
    the living room. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the looks of games in
    these days. And as funny it may seem, I still think the first "Doom"
    and "Duke Nukem 3d" are pretty. I have a soft spot for the sprites, I
    guess. One thing that worries me, just like you said, is that the games
    are done for the consoles first, and the PC convertions from these
    titles will suffer in size and technologically. I know that there are
    many smart home-coders and fans out there who can mod these puppies and
    make them better looking for the PC hardware ("Thief 3"), but I hope it
    doesen't make the developers lazy by thinking, "hey, let's leave the
    textures blurry on Lara Croft's pretty bum and let the fans deal with it
    later".
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:30:14 -0700, shoe gazer <shoe@gazer.here>
    wrote:

    >Good job on the graphics coding. Too bad they didn't do such a bang up
    >job with Swat4 though as that game has some slow down problems at
    >times but I think it is AI (cpu) related and not graphics. I see an
    >AMD64 3800+ and new vid card in my near future when the prices are a
    >bit more favourable.

    It isn't AI related, it doesn't happen in the demo and not all
    machines suffer from it. The devs seem to be ignoring the problem
    which has ruined the game for me.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Raymond Martineau" <bk039@ncf.ca> wrote in message
    news:nh7l81lrvav46g02m252likbaal4ekl5oe@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:54:15 -0600, "Hank the Rapper"
    > <xflopgoon@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Plus there is no computer that you
    > >can buy for $500 that will run Doom 3 reasonably
    >
    > http://www.oemexpress.com/
    >
    > A-Speed 2300+ sells for 299.99.
    >
    > An ATI/Sapphire Radeon X300SE 128MB PCI-E sells for 79.99. (Or you can
    > grab the 59.99 model.)
    >
    > Subtotal is: $379.98.
    > Sales tax (15%) brings total to $436.98.
    >
    > Want more memory? But Crucial 235MB DDR400 for $39.99.
    > The total cost is $482.97.
    >
    >
    >
    >

    I went to above link and find an "AMD SEMPRON 2300 STARTER SYSTEM" which
    sells for the $299.99 (not sure if this is the exact system that you are
    talking about).

    http://www.oemexpress.com/Itemdesc.asp?CartId={357C26C4-AC4C-44B9-A093-354720D0C4D9}&ic=AAAOEM%2DSALE01

    But the gamer will still need to fork out $ for WinXP and a monitor. Also,
    the store appears to be in Canada. So I'm guessing that the prices shown
    are for Canadian dollars. If so the currency for $300 (CDN) converts to
    $236.87 (US) dollars.

    http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/exchform.htm
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    steamKILLER wrote:

    > i truly disliked your posts in the past
    > you were one of those posters i couldn't keep from flaming
    > i thought you were intelectual, snobbish and arrogant
    > but lately you have been writing some very good posts
    > this is very good!
    > thank you!

    Talk about a slap in the face to Raymond.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Quoth The Raven "Walter Mitty"<mitticus@gmail.com> in
    3f0pnmF4b0vhU2@uni-berlin.de
    > shoe gazer wrote:
    >> On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:32:28 +0100, "Shawk"
    >> <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Q4 is
    >>>being developed by Raven too - not ID.
    >>
    >>
    >> Yea, so? Raven did SOFII which is a POS.
    >
    > I thought SOFII was very enjoyable : good old fashioned FPS with some
    > great scenarios.

    I loved right up until I found the first rescue guy, I never got him out of
    the hotel alive. I never found out what the rest of the game was like

    --
    Very funny Scotty ... now beam down my clothes!

    Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:26:59 +1000, "Highlandish"
    <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:


    >I loved right up until I found the first rescue guy, I never got him out of
    >the hotel alive. I never found out what the rest of the game was like

    I went past that scenario. My qualms with the game was that it was too
    arcade and not enough sim. It was one of those games that made me feel
    nauseous too. I got to the latter jungle scenarios and kind of gave up
    on it after that - will finish it later. I still have it installed
    right now but I went onto Silent Hunter III then Swat4 and am now on
    Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - all are much better games than SOFII,
    IMO
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "shoe gazer" <shoe@gazer.here> wrote in message
    news:tsmm8191mumaatfgaqo17lku9b18bo2vto@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:26:59 +1000, "Highlandish"
    > <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I loved right up until I found the first rescue guy, I never got him out
    >>of
    >>the hotel alive. I never found out what the rest of the game was like
    >
    > I went past that scenario. My qualms with the game was that it was too
    > arcade and not enough sim. It was one of those games that made me feel
    > nauseous too. I got to the latter jungle scenarios and kind of gave up
    > on it after that - will finish it later. I still have it installed
    > right now but I went onto Silent Hunter III then Swat4 and am now on
    > Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - all are much better games than SOFII,
    > IMO

    You are comparing a game around 5 years old with ones from this year (though
    that shouldn't matter for gameplay).

    Sorry for biting yer head off - it was 4am - I have a broken tooth - not
    happy.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    shoe gazer wrote:
    > On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:26:59 +1000, "Highlandish"
    > <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>I loved right up until I found the first rescue guy, I never got him out of
    >>the hotel alive. I never found out what the rest of the game was like
    >
    >
    > I went past that scenario. My qualms with the game was that it was too
    > arcade and not enough sim. It was one of those games that made me feel
    > nauseous too. I got to the latter jungle scenarios and kind of gave up
    > on it after that - will finish it later. I still have it installed
    > right now but I went onto Silent Hunter III then Swat4 and am now on
    > Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - all are much better games than SOFII,
    > IMO

    How can you compare an old game based on Q2 engine with these new games?

    SOFII was meant as an arcade shooter.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:26:05 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    >shoe gazer wrote:
    >> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:26:59 +1000, "Highlandish"
    >> <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>I loved right up until I found the first rescue guy, I never got him out of
    >>>the hotel alive. I never found out what the rest of the game was like
    >>
    >>
    >> I went past that scenario. My qualms with the game was that it was too
    >> arcade and not enough sim. It was one of those games that made me feel
    >> nauseous too. I got to the latter jungle scenarios and kind of gave up
    >> on it after that - will finish it later. I still have it installed
    >> right now but I went onto Silent Hunter III then Swat4 and am now on
    >> Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - all are much better games than SOFII,
    >> IMO
    >
    >How can you compare an old game based on Q2 engine with these new games?

    Q3.

    Q2 didn't have the voting system that is standard in Q3 engine games.

    >SOFII was meant as an arcade shooter.

    Wasn't a pure arcade shooter - IIRC, one of the missions requires light
    stealth (no alarms or weapon fire), although it could easily be munchkined
    by knocking out the guards silently.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 17 May 2005 20:23:17 -0600, "Hank the Rapper"
    <xflopgoon@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:

    >Raymond Martineau wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.oemexpress.com/
    >>
    >> A-Speed 2300+ sells for 299.99.
    >>
    >> An ATI/Sapphire Radeon X300SE 128MB PCI-E sells for 79.99. (Or you
    >> can grab the 59.99 model.)
    >>
    >> Subtotal is: $379.98.
    >> Sales tax (15%) brings total to $436.98.
    >>
    >> Want more memory? But Crucial 235MB DDR400 for $39.99.
    >> The total cost is $482.97.
    >
    >That's nice, will it actually work reasonably?

    I've assembeled a similar system, where a video card was moved from a
    previous computer. Works fine with UT2004 and FarCry - I'll need to get
    Doom 3 to fully gague this system class. If I didn't move the video card
    (and replace stock WinXP NVidia drivers), framerates would be unacceptable
    assuming those games would run at all.

    My intent on that system was to have something quiet for a change. In this
    case, Either I have good graphics with a Geforce 4 Ti4400, or a quiet
    computer with a stock 3D accelerator.

    >Cheap computers look nice on paper but when you run them that's an
    >entirely different story.

    This is usually a judgement call you have to make. You don't need a
    powerful computer unless you play games, do multimedia/animation design, or
    run a server. First case is fixed with video card+memory, second is with
    CPU+memory (video card optional), and third generally uses a RAID
    array/network cards.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:05:48 GMT, "Abaccue" <Abc@aaazz.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Raymond Martineau" <bk039@ncf.ca> wrote in message
    >news:nh7l81lrvav46g02m252likbaal4ekl5oe@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:54:15 -0600, "Hank the Rapper"
    >> <xflopgoon@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Plus there is no computer that you
    >> >can buy for $500 that will run Doom 3 reasonably
    >>
    >> http://www.oemexpress.com/
    >>
    >> A-Speed 2300+ sells for 299.99.
    >>
    >> An ATI/Sapphire Radeon X300SE 128MB PCI-E sells for 79.99. (Or you can
    >> grab the 59.99 model.)
    >>
    >> Subtotal is: $379.98.
    >> Sales tax (15%) brings total to $436.98.
    >>
    >> Want more memory? But Crucial 235MB DDR400 for $39.99.
    >> The total cost is $482.97.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >I went to above link and find an "AMD SEMPRON 2300 STARTER SYSTEM" which
    >sells for the $299.99 (not sure if this is the exact system that you are
    >talking about).

    I've built a close varient of that system (used video card, two hard
    drives). Rather cheap, and is aimed at those wanting a quick jump into the
    computer market.

    >
    >http://www.oemexpress.com/Itemdesc.asp?CartId={357C26C4-AC4C-44B9-A093-354720D0C4D9}&ic=AAAOEM%2DSALE01
    >

    BTW, the deep-links on that store expire very quickly.

    >But the gamer will still need to fork out $ for WinXP and a monitor.

    I've seen WinXP Home OEM being priced at $75 on a local forsale newsgroup.
    Rather cheap, but I don't know about the fidelity of the keys (let along
    where they got the copies for that low of a price.)

    Alternativly, you can just grab wipe your old computer and install Linux -
    being sure to transfer the Windows licence to the new computer. For WinXP,
    you will have to call and reactivate (works only a few times.)


    >Also,
    >the store appears to be in Canada. So I'm guessing that the prices shown
    >are for Canadian dollars. If so the currency for $300 (CDN) converts to
    >$236.87 (US) dollars.

    Yes, that's correct. Makes it much easier to fit within the $500 limit. ;)

    BTW, the $300 product has a 15% sales tax. Thus, the "true" exchange rate
    is generally 90-92%, resulting in a equivalent cost of $272.40. You might
    be able to get reimbursed for the tax, but I'm not sure.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:39:52 +0100, "Shawk"
    <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:


    >You are comparing a game around 5 years old with ones from this year (though
    >that shouldn't matter for gameplay).
    >
    >Sorry for biting yer head off - it was 4am - I have a broken tooth - not
    >happy.
    >
    >

    Yea, well, you made a good point. What does the age of a game have to
    do with quality of gameplay? And SOFII isn't five years old either. It
    is only three years old. SWAT 3 is much better than SOFII and that
    game *is* five years old. Your whole argument has just been torn to
    shreds. Next!
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:26:05 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
    wrote:


    >How can you compare an old game based on Q2 engine with these new games?

    How can you compare graphics engine with gameplay? Are you one of them
    "eye candy whores" who base the quality of games purely on graphics?
    You may as well use your PC as an e-machine and save up for an Xbox360
    or PS3.
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:50:14 GMT, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:


    >It isn't AI related, it doesn't happen in the demo and not all
    >machines suffer from it. The devs seem to be ignoring the problem
    >which has ruined the game for me.

    I see other's saying it is AI/CPU related on other web forums like
    SimHQ. It didn't completely ruin the game for me as I was able to
    finish the game but it should run better than it did. I tried turning
    off all of the various graphics settings that might cause this issue
    and it never made the slightest difference so that is why I think it
    is an AI/CPU issue. I've seen this sort of issue happen in flight-sims
    many times. In fact, the flight sim LOMAC has a similar issue right
    now and it is AI/CPU related and not graphics. Whenever a new group of
    AI planes come into focus there is sometimes a slight stutter. DS's
    Battlecruiser had the same problem.
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 19 May 2005 15:29:27 -0700, shoe gazer <shoe@gazer.here>
    wrote:

    >I see other's saying it is AI/CPU related on other web forums like
    >SimHQ. It didn't completely ruin the game for me as I was able to
    >finish the game but it should run better than it did. I tried turning
    >off all of the various graphics settings that might cause this issue
    >and it never made the slightest difference so that is why I think it
    >is an AI/CPU issue. I've seen this sort of issue happen in flight-sims
    >many times. In fact, the flight sim LOMAC has a similar issue right
    >now and it is AI/CPU related and not graphics. Whenever a new group of
    >AI planes come into focus there is sometimes a slight stutter. DS's
    >Battlecruiser had the same problem.

    If it was AI it would be consistent slowdowns for everyone as the CPU
    would be doing the same processing. It is only a subset of users
    machines that get the problem with Swat 4, quite a few of those with
    high end machines.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:40:59 GMT, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:


    >
    >If it was AI it would be consistent slowdowns for everyone as the CPU
    >would be doing the same processing. It is only a subset of users
    >machines that get the problem with Swat 4, quite a few of those with
    >high end machines.

    Can you point me to where it says it's only a subset. So far I have
    read it is everyone has this issue.
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly shoe gazer <shoe@gazer.here> Spake Unto All:

    >>How can you compare an old game based on Q2 engine with these new games?
    >
    >How can you compare graphics engine with gameplay? Are you one of them
    >"eye candy whores" who base the quality of games purely on graphics?
    >You may as well use your PC as an e-machine and save up for an Xbox360
    >or PS3.

    Because there's nothing us eye candy whores love better than 640x480 @
    30 fps.

    And no AA, of course. Who needs that on a TV - it's already fuzzy.
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "shoe gazer" <shoe@gazer.here> wrote in message
    news:io3q81h4rfikhdeohlkjs8hiaj0ln2toc5@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:39:52 +0100, "Shawk"
    > <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>You are comparing a game around 5 years old with ones from this year
    >>(though
    >>that shouldn't matter for gameplay).
    >>
    >>Sorry for biting yer head off - it was 4am - I have a broken tooth - not
    >>happy.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Yea, well, you made a good point. What does the age of a game have to
    > do with quality of gameplay? And SOFII isn't five years old either. It
    > is only three years old. SWAT 3 is much better than SOFII and that
    > game *is* five years old. Your whole argument has just been torn to
    > shreds. Next!
    >

    You're right about the age. A few sites have release date as May 2002.

    Never played Swat 3 however - quote - "though that shouldn't matter for
    gameplay".

    What argument was it that you so skillfully tore to shreds?
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:16:42 -0700, shoe gazer <shoe@gazer.here>
    wrote:

    >>If it was AI it would be consistent slowdowns for everyone as the CPU
    >>would be doing the same processing. It is only a subset of users
    >>machines that get the problem with Swat 4, quite a few of those with
    >>high end machines.
    >
    >Can you point me to where it says it's only a subset. So far I have
    >read it is everyone has this issue.

    The official forum at:
    http://community.vugames.com/WebX?14@114.7H4ve0gwpAN.11102268@.f01fa1c

    There are plenty of people for whom it runs fine, and the devs don't
    seem to be doing anything to help aside from point to the FAQ that
    does nothing to help.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    < snip >

    > Elite Force II looked and sounded much better than the original (even the
    > demo).

    I agree. It was (mostly) a decent bug-squashing ride.

    I might replay this year before the new Starship Troopers comes out.

    - f_f
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Fri, 20 May 2005 06:28:15 GMT, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:


    >The official forum at:
    >http://community.vugames.com/WebX?14@114.7H4ve0gwpAN.11102268@.f01fa1c
    >
    >There are plenty of people for whom it runs fine, and the devs don't
    >seem to be doing anything to help aside from point to the FAQ that
    >does nothing to help.

    There are always people who say a game runs fine and don't see a frame
    rate issue when in fact there is one. They are blind to it.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Xbox 360 Games Software Video Games