Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quake IV announced for Xbox 360

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:57:50 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:12:48 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 7:59:26 AM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:41:12 PM

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
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:46:26 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 8:48:39 PM

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

faster_framerates wrote:

> True, but you can rent console games.

*hugs Gamefly account*
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 8:52:22 PM

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
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 8:52:23 PM

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
May 17, 2005 10:05:30 PM

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.
May 17, 2005 11:15:27 PM

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...
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 1:37:38 AM

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
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 1:49:24 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 1:49:25 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 2:01:15 AM

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
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 2:01:41 AM

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...
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 2:54:17 AM

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.
May 18, 2005 3:32:28 AM

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).
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:32:29 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:24:44 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:24:45 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:24:46 AM

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.)
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:54:21 AM

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
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 8:25:12 AM

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
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 11:18:03 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:20:20 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:20:21 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:20:22 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 6:11:47 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 6:11:48 PM

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.
May 18, 2005 6:20:56 PM

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".
May 18, 2005 7:50:14 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 9:05:48 PM

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
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 9:09:31 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:26:59 AM

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
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:27:00 AM

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
May 19, 2005 2:27:01 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:27:01 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 3:24:37 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:35:44 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:38:04 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:17:50 PM

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!
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:20:38 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:29:27 PM

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.
May 20, 2005 2:40:59 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:41:00 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:41:10 AM

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.
May 20, 2005 6:37:42 AM

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?
May 20, 2005 10:28:15 AM

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.11...

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.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:34:30 PM

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
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:51:59 PM

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.11...
>
>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.
!