• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ankit.86j

PS3 or XBOX 360....?

65 posts in this topic

[quote name='DavidGArce1337' timestamp='1352399851' post='4998967']
[quote name='slicer4ever' timestamp='1352299449' post='4998420']
i'd be more worried about it being backwards compatible with the 360, i'm sure with being two generations ahead, emulating the original xbox well probably be nothing for the "720".
[/quote]Well, by rumors only, so take with a big grain of salt...the leaked 720 hardware paper of what MS wants or wanted the 720 to have stated that It would have the same CPU+GPU as the 360, among the new stuff. Only a rumor! Just saying that I can wait for confirmation. I'm actually spending my gaming time on old PS2 games atm, as I just bought a Slim. And PC/MMO.[/quote]Yes, the rumour is that the "720" will have new hardware, but also contain the CPU/GPU from the 'slim 360', which would make it pretty powerful ([i]albeit confusing hybrid, like the PS3's PPU+SPUs+RSX[/i]) for native titles, and allow perfect emulation of 360 titles.

There's also another rumour that MS will soon launch an official 360 software emulator for Windows 8, which will allow any moderately powerful Win8 machine to play 360 games.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1352460325' post='4999221']
[quote name='DavidGArce1337' timestamp='1352399851' post='4998967']
[quote name='slicer4ever' timestamp='1352299449' post='4998420']
i'd be more worried about it being backwards compatible with the 360, i'm sure with being two generations ahead, emulating the original xbox well probably be nothing for the "720".
[/quote]Well, by rumors only, so take with a big grain of salt...the leaked 720 hardware paper of what MS wants or wanted the 720 to have stated that It would have the same CPU+GPU as the 360, among the new stuff. Only a rumor! Just saying that I can wait for confirmation. I'm actually spending my gaming time on old PS2 games atm, as I just bought a Slim. And PC/MMO.[/quote]Yes, the rumour is that the "720" will have new hardware, but also contain the CPU/GPU from the 'slim 360', which would make it pretty powerful ([i]albeit confusing hybrid, like the PS3's PPU+SPUs+RSX[/i]) for native titles, and allow perfect emulation of 360 titles.

There's also another rumour that MS will soon launch an official 360 software emulator for Windows 8, which will allow any moderately powerful Win8 machine to play 360 games.
[/quote]

Halo 4 with a mouse = zomg
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Prinz Eugn' timestamp='1352487726' post='4999387']Halo 4 with a mouse = zomg[/quote]
A reason why FPS games on a console never made sense to me.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='fastcall22' timestamp='1352488289' post='4999391']
[quote name='Prinz Eugn' timestamp='1352487726' post='4999387']Halo 4 with a mouse = zomg[/quote]
A reason why FPS games on a console never made sense to me.
[/quote]
Really?, out of all the genre's, i think fps's probably fit the dual analog controller scheme best. This is not to say mouse/keyboard isn't superior, just that fps's work decently well with such a controller setup imo.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='slicer4ever' timestamp='1352506191' post='4999490']
Really?, out of all the genre's, i think fps's probably fit the dual analog controller scheme best. This is not to say mouse/keyboard isn't superior, just that fps's work decently well with such a controller setup imo.
[/quote]
I think it depends on the focus of the FPS. Accuracy tends to struggle somewhat on dual analogue, but movement excels. Depends on what the game stresses I suppose. Counterstrike isn't that great on dual analogue, but Natural Selection 2 would probably be awesome on it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People who think you can't aim with a dual shock just aren't experienced enough. After you practice, it becomes second nature. Moving a thumbstick is no different than dragging a mouse. And before someone brings it up, a lot of hardcore FPS players turn off auto-aim features. It actually tends to be a hindrance in competitive gameplay.

I think it's just that PC gamers don't use their thumbs like console gamers do, so when they try to aim, they lack the thumb control that a console gamer has built up over many years of practice. Also, I think many PC gamers don't realize the subtleties of the thumbsticks, and the huge range speed and force differences you can give as input. Because a lot of PC games have tended to treat sticks as digital 'all or nothing' inputs.

So when PC gamers try to use a thumbstick like a mouse, they get bad results. The mouse works like a pointer, even in an FPS. But a thumbstick controls both the speed and the direction of the aiming. So a PC gamer will push both thumbsticks all the way, and end up running at full speed, while doing a super fast aim in a random direction. Then they pass it off as clumbsy and inaccurate. :) Don't try to use a screw driver like a hammer.

On a sidenote, I remember back when [i]WASD + Mouselook[/i] was just an unofficial user key mapping for the first full 3D FPS games, and most people found it awkward, but eventually stuck to it after practicing and getting used to it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^^ That's true, but there is still one big difference between moving a thumbstick and dragging a mouse -- time.

A mouse is an absolute input with (practically) no range on the input that can be given per 'tick'. It's default state is at rest, and only generates inputs when it is moved to new locations. e.g. it can move from (100,234) to (23,2000) in one message.
A stick is a relative input with a normalized range. When it is moved to a location and held there, it continually generates messages with that position, and has a 'spring' to return it to zero.

When controlling a FPS camera the two necessarily have to behave pretty differently. Let's say the player is looking at one orientation, and wishes to turn to another orientation:
* with the mouse, there is [i]always[/i] an input vector that will solve that wish in a single message. Assuming no mouse acceleration, a player's muscle memory allows them to know the exact distance that they should move the mouse in a single frame to achieve that wish. This is what allows you to be shooting someone in the back one frame, and have been 180 no-scoped by them on the next frame...
* with the stick, there is only an input vector that will solve that wish in a single frame [b]if[/b] the difference in angle is less than [font=courier new,courier,monospace]1.0 (max input) * maxRotationSpeed * deltaTime[/font]. There is almost certainly no way to indicate that you want to turn exactly 179.3 degrees in a single frame, from an idle starting position (because maxRotationPerFrame is usually much less than 180 degrees).

I'm of the opinion that FPS games where you can spin 180 in a single frame aren't very fun, so this doesn't bother me... but in a professional game of Counter-Strike, a pro game-pad player would be at a huge disadvantage compared to a pro mouse player.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The WiiU to return nintendo to hardcore market? You must be jocking.
Without even knowing the hardware but simply "guess" it I can tell for sure this is just another Wii. And I've been extremely dissatisfied with my Wii. They're never going to see any money from me again.

Personally I like the Halo franchise. Most games I've seen for PS3 didn't impress me, besides a few notable exceptions. So I'd get a ... nothing! I'll get a new video card instead, my TV is like 12 years old!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some games have solved that by having a 180 turn button.

Counter Strike would be a case where the game was designed around the subtleties of the mouse, and not the subtleties of the gamepad. You can say the same in reverse. Games that take advantage of the gamepad's advantages suffer greatly on a WASD + Mouselook setup. Especially when it comes to controlling subtle character movements. Splinter Cell and GTA really suffer with all or nothing WASD. Splinter Cell used the mouse wheel to try and control movement speed. What a disaster.

Mouselook FPS games (especially earlier ones) tended to treat your cross hair like the hand of god. You didn't so much aim a gun as you just pointed at something and clicked. It's accurate pointing, but I don't find it to be an accurate experience or representation.

In GTA games, it's meant to be hard to ride on the back of someone else's motorcycle or getaway car, and win a gun battle with a bunch of other vehicles moving at high speed. On the PC ports, you just point the cursor at their heads and 1 shot kill them.

I find it really hard to drive cars in my PC versions of GTA. Both steering and gas are all or nothing, and I have to remember to keep pressing and releasing both to try and maintain control. On the gamepad, the buttons and the steering and analog and pressure based, so it's easy. My speed is controlled by how far down I press the button. (that's why this current gen moved the gas and brake to the triggers, because the face buttons are no longer analog like last gen!).

Unfortunately, playing with a gamepad on the PC versions is no better, because they treat it as a simple key remapping. Odd, because they had already been on PS2 and Xbox with very good gamepad handling. I guess because there are no standards for PC controllers they have to leave it completely generic.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1352536753' post='4999583']
A mouse is an absolute input with (practically) no range on the input that can be given per 'tick'. It's default state is at rest, and only generates inputs when it is moved to new locations. e.g. it can move from (100,234) to (23,2000) in one message.
[/quote]

That does not make sense to me...at all. Isn't my pointer/aim position being tracked at all times? What's the point of those hardcore "gaming" mouses then?
To me, you made the mouse movement sound like a car going from 0 to 100MPH in an instant. While a gamepad movement(and any other input device?) not capable and behaving differently.

Maybe from a laser pointing device...or touch input. But a mouse?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[b]Buy a gaming PC[/b].

Not joking. You get almost all the games that are released on consoles (and even if you buy a ps3/xbox there will always be exclusives to either system), plus you get heaps of free games, steam sales, etc.

If you want to play FPS/RTS, you have a better control scheme*. For anything more actiony, just get a 360 controller. I sometimes use both (currently playing Sleeping Dogs and switch between controller for driving/fighting and mouse for shooting)

You can play at a desk or on a HDTV (see [url="http://store.steampowered.com/bigpicture/"]Steams Big Picture Mode[/url]).

The games you buy now will look better. Sleeping Dogs, for instance, looks way better on PC.

When the 720/ps4/whatever comes out in a year or two, your pc will be more than likely be able to run those games too.

Really the only thing you're missing out on is kinnect/move and I've yet to see wither offer a compelling gaming experience.

[size=2]* sorry, but anyone who thinks playing an fps is better with a controller is deluded. Microsoft did some research a few years ago with a view to allowing xbox and pc gamers to play together. The pc players [i]annihilated[/i] the people playing with controllers, even with a huge skill gap (i.e. pro xbox players vs average pc gamers). I'm not saying mouse is always better. IMO it sucks for driving and fighting games.[/size]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe Halo popularized not treating grenades and melee attacks simply as different guns, because pure shooting gameplay would have been pretty bad with console controls. So I think it's interesting because I think FPS on console led to some good gameplay innovation that found its way into the entire market because aiming is harder.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='DavidGArce1337' timestamp='1352627467' post='4999858']
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1352536753' post='4999583']
A mouse is an absolute input with (practically) no range on the input that can be given per 'tick'. It's default state is at rest, and only generates inputs when it is moved to new locations. e.g. it can move from (100,234) to (23,2000) in one message.
[/quote]That does not make sense to me...at all. Isn't my pointer/aim position being tracked at all times? What's the point of those hardcore "gaming" mouses then?[/quote]Hardcore gaming mice have a very high polling rate, e.g. they sample the mouse's location at 1000Hz, or once per millisecond. However, the game still only samples this information usually once per frame, e.g. 60Hz, or once per 17 milliseconds.
The advantage of having your hardware polling faster than 60Hz is so that when the game does read the mouse location, it's got the most up-to-date information possible -- e.g. if the mouse hardware only sampled at the same rate as the game, e.g. 60Hz, and the game update happened to run 1ms ahead of the mouse hardware update, it could introduce 1 frame of input latency:
[code]*1ms mouse hardware update - Send Message #1: no movement
*15ms user moves mouse 2 pixels left
*17ms game update - Recieve Message #1: no movement
*18ms mouse hardware update - Send Message #2: 2 pixels left
*19ms user moves mouse 5 pixels right
*33ms game update - Recieve Message #2: 2 pixels left[/code]As [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency"]a decent starting point[/url], a good mouse should sample it's position at twice the game's framerate -- even though the game only samples the mouse position once per frame!

[quote]To me, you made the mouse movement sound like a car going from 0 to 100MPH in an instant. While a gamepad movement(and any other input device?) not capable and behaving differently.[/quote]Just in theory in the semantics of the messages.
e.g. Say I'm writing an aim-bot for a FPS, and as quickly as possible I want to send messages to the game to make the player turn to face another player's head.
If it's a mouse-based one, there is always a single message that can encode the command of "turn to face this exact angle" -- the mouse is basically [i]setting the player's orientation[/i].
If it's a game-pad based one, then the bot may have to send a message telling the game to start rotating ([i]hold the stick at some precise angle[/i]), then wait several frames for the game to rotate the camera, then send a message telling it to stop ([i]move the stick back to the [/i][i]center[/i]) -- the pad is basically [i]setting the player's rotational velocity[/i].
i.e. the former is [font=courier new,courier,monospace]angle += input[/font], and the latter is [font=courier new,courier,monospace]angle += clamp(input,-1,1) * constant * deltaTime[/font].
With the mouse, [font=courier new,courier,monospace]z = y + x[/font] can always be solved for [font=courier new,courier,monospace]x[/font], so the aimbot can always aim perfectly every frame. With the pad [font=courier new,courier,monospace]z = y + x * c * dt; 1 >= x >= -1[/font] can't necessarily be solved for [font=courier new,courier,monospace]x[/font] -- if [font=courier new,courier,monospace]1*c*dt[/font] is smaller than the amount of turning you wish to perform next frame, then the aim-bot will have to perform the turning maneuver over several frames. Edited by Hodgman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352752495' post='5000314']
[b]Buy a gaming PC[/b].[/quote]
If you can make a gaming PC for less than the price of an xbox 360 that performs better I will gladly accept this as an alternative.

Money not being an issue I'd agree, but ignoring money isn't a luxury everyone has.

[quote]
[size=2]* sorry, but anyone who thinks playing an fps is better with a controller is deluded. Microsoft did some research a few years ago with a view to allowing xbox and pc gamers to play together. The pc players [i]annihilated[/i] the people playing with controllers, even with a huge skill gap (i.e. pro xbox players vs average pc gamers). I'm not saying mouse is always better. IMO it sucks for driving and fighting games.[/size]
[/quote]
I like controllers more. I know I don't do as well as competitive gamers on either control scheme, but I never enjoyed FPS's as much with a mouse and keyboard as I do with a controller. That said, this argument is like saying, "anybody who thinks olympic swimmers are faster than olympic runners is deluded." It avoids the important aspect that skill differential between players on similar platforms is more important than what you use to control your game; I have yet to see a convincing case in that regard that either is better.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1352777009' post='5000442']

If you can make a gaming PC for less than the price of an xbox 360 that performs better I will gladly accept this as an alternative.

Money not being an issue I'd agree, but ignoring money isn't a luxury everyone has.
[/quote]

If your budget is that tight, then yes, a console will be cheaper in the short term. Right now, though the current gen in nearing end of life, so buying an xbox/ps3 now means you won't be able to play new releases in 2 or 3 years without buying a whole new console. With a PC you could upgrade for much less than that, plus you're getting a lot more computer for your money. Factor in cheaper games (steam sales etc) and the difference really isn't that big.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1352777009' post='5000442']
I like controllers more. I know I don't do as well as competitive gamers on either control scheme, but I never enjoyed FPS's as much with a mouse and keyboard as I do with a controller. That said, this argument is like saying, "anybody who thinks olympic swimmers are faster than olympic runners is deluded." It avoids the important aspect that skill differential between players on similar platforms is more important than what you use to control your game; I have yet to see a convincing case in that regard that either is better.
[/quote]

There's nothing stopping you using a controller on a PC. A lot of games actually come with pretty decent x360 controller support out of the box.

As for your swimming analogy, it's more accurate than you realise. Except using a controller in a fps is like swimming on a track. Equally, using a mouse/kb for a fighting game is like trying to run in the pool.

I find aiming with a controller frustrating, like trying to type with mittens on. If you enjoy that fine, but one is clearly more optimal than the other.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This late into the lifespan of current gen consoles I'd go for Xbox, seeing as the upfront console price is cheaper and you'll probably only have it for a year or so until next gen.
The ps3 and xbox aren't that different. There are 4 major points to look at though: 1. The ps3 has bluray
2. The ps3 has free online, although Xbox's online is disputably better (early DLCs, party chat, larger community)
3. Exclusives. Xbox has kinect, halo, gears of war, and a tone of cool arcade games
4. What console your friends have. Probably the most important aspect, games are way more fun to play with friends, so if all your friends have a ps3 get that and live without halo etc.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352784290' post='5000470']
There's nothing stopping you using a controller on a PC. A lot of games actually come with pretty decent x360 controller support out of the box.[/quote]
I have found in general a lot of games don't have proper gamepad support on PC. They tend to just map gamepad controls into KB/M controls rather than dealing with it on it's own, and games tend to suffer. A lot of multi-platform games don't have that issue, but there are a lot of games that still don't handle it properly. It's a viable option for some people though.

My general reason is that I don't want to hook my PC to my TV (convenience/placement more than difficulty), and I prefer to game on the couch. Certainly not the case for everyone, but that's why I don't do that.

[quote]As for your swimming analogy, it's more accurate than you realise. Except using a controller in a fps is like swimming on a track. Equally, using a mouse/kb for a fighting game is like trying to run in the pool.

I find aiming with a controller frustrating, like trying to type with mittens on. If you enjoy that fine, but one is clearly more optimal than the other.
[/quote]

I think the problem is that you are equating FPS's as equal. In your analogy all FPS's are running and all fighting games are swimming. I disagree with that. Plenty of FPS's stress very different things. You shouldn't view the genre as it's own sport, but rather each game as it's own sport. You may as well generalize american footballs as the best ball for "sports with balls" because you can throw it further than other balls, but using an american football in soccer or baseball would just be silly.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352752495' post='5000314']
Really the only thing you're missing out on is kinnect/move and I've yet to see wither offer a compelling gaming experience.
[/quote]

And about 99% of console games.


[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352784290' post='5000470']
If your budget is that tight, then yes, a console will be cheaper in the short term. Right now, though the current gen in nearing end of life, so buying an xbox/ps3 now means you won't be able to play new releases in 2 or 3 years without buying a whole new console. With a PC you could upgrade for much less than that, plus you're getting a lot more computer for your money. Factor in cheaper games (steam sales etc) and the difference really isn't that big.
[/quote]

A console will always be cheaper. Buying a console now gives you a catalog of games to play. I still play PS2 games. PC games are cheaper, but the whole quality experience will be best on a console, if its a port. If I want to play current gen games on PC, right now. How much will it be? How much for a PC(the whole thing) that can play Battlefield 3, Diablo 3, (insert big name company game here) in 720p running at 60 FPS minimum or 1080p running at 30 FPS minimum? Or how much for a laptop that can?

Considering MaximumPC's "Baseline/Cheapest" Build from the December Issue, which they claim its built for 1080p gaming...an approximate price of $1,200 and that's without a Display(!), keyboard, mouse. (or gamepad)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='DavidGArce1337' timestamp='1352825728' post='5000613']
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352752495' post='5000314']
Really the only thing you're missing out on is kinnect/move and I've yet to see wither offer a compelling gaming experience.
[/quote]

And about 99% of console games.
[/quote]

Sorry, that's just not true. Certainly not of major releases anyway. As I said, there will always be platform exclusives (halo on xbox, god of war on ps3, blizzard games on pc), but it's nowhere near "99% of console games".

[quote name='DavidGArce1337' timestamp='1352825728' post='5000613']
A console will always be cheaper. Buying a console now gives you a catalog of games to play. I still play PS2 games. PC games are cheaper, but the whole quality experience will be best on a console, if its a port. If I want to play current gen games on PC, right now. How much will it be? How much for a PC(the whole thing) that can play Battlefield 3, Diablo 3, (insert big name company game here) in 720p running at 60 FPS minimum or 1080p running at 30 FPS minimum? Or how much for a laptop that can?

Considering MaximumPC's "Baseline/Cheapest" Build from the December Issue, which they claim its built for 1080p gaming...an approximate price of $1,200 and that's without a Display(!), keyboard, mouse. (or gamepad)

[/quote]

If you want to play the latest and greatest maxed out at high res you're always going to pay lots. But if you're prepared to be reasonable (i.e. tone down the the settings from 16x AA with everything on ultra) you can build a pretty reasonable pc for a lot less. I built mine for about US$800 two years ago and I can still get a good framerate in almost every game I play. It's certainly better than any console.

And saying that's without a display is a red herring. How many consoles do you know that come with a display?

I'm not against consoles, but now is a terrible time to buy one. In a year or two the next gen will be out and you will not be able to play new games on your old machine. End of story. So you're going to have to shell out another $4-500 for a ps4/x720 at that point.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352839973' post='5000666']
Sorry, that's just not true. Certainly not of major releases anyway. As I said, there will always be platform exclusives (halo on xbox, god of war on ps3, blizzard games on pc), but it's nowhere near "99% of console games".
[/quote]

Okay, okay...95% of console games. Games from "major companies" are mostly made on the consoles. Other than MMO's and RTS games. And those "ports" get horrible reviews most of the time.

[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352839973' post='5000666']
If you want to play the latest and greatest maxed out at high res you're always going to pay lots. But if you're prepared to be reasonable (i.e. tone down the the settings from 16x AA with everything on ultra) you can build a pretty reasonable pc for a lot less. I built mine for about US$800 two years ago and I can still get a good framerate in almost every game I play. It's certainly better than any console.[/quote]

PS3 and 360 play 720p and 1080p games. Some at 30FPS some at 60FPS. The rig I mentioned above was built for 1080p gaming, and a baseline budget build price of $1,200. I'm simply asking for a PC or Laptop that can give me "Current Console Resolutions" and "Frames per Second" at console prices or not much higher. Not possible.

[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352839973' post='5000666']
And saying that's without a display is a red herring. How many consoles do you know that come with a display?
[/quote]

TV's are more common than Monitors and Computers, I think.

[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352839973' post='5000666']
I'm not against consoles, but now is a terrible time to buy one. In a year or two the next gen will be out and you will not be able to play new games on your old machine. End of story. So you're going to have to shell out another $4-500 for a ps4/x720 at that point.
[/quote]

Pay $250-$350(console prices) now, and get to choose from 7-9 years of games developed for them, I really doubt games will stop as soon as the new ones show up, they might get a year or so still. Pay $300-$600 "next gen" for 7-9 more years of gaming. $350+600 = $950. There's your budget, can you build a PC that will give me 10 years of "hardcore" gaming for less than $1,000?

Don't take it the wrong way. I can't do it. I'm actually trying, but all I get on my head is "Wait for Haswell, Kaveri and Kavini..."
I do think that things might change in the future. I wish there was more external things happening on the Laptop side of things like having an external GPU or coprocessor would have been awesome...I'm not fond of desktops, I need something good enough, portable enough and functional enough. And right now, without a DX11.1 class igpu on a laptop I'd feel like I just shot myself on the foot, so I'll just wait.

Another thing is that I'd have to build my own desktop, since the places I have tried to "customize" mine have failed me by making certain things an obligation that I don't want or need at all...rawr! Or worse, won't ship to my country!(Puerto Rico, which is part of the USA! I can't even get a custom HP brand, and there's HP datacenters and stuff on the island...) =/

So, at this moment in time. Getting anything custom made, has been impossible. I'll build one someday... Edited by DavidGArce1337
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='DavidGArce1337' timestamp='1352843892' post='5000687']
Okay, okay...95% of console games. Games from "major companies" are mostly made on the consoles. Other than MMO's and RTS games. And those "ports" get horrible reviews most of the time.
[/quote]

Sorry, but that's just bollocks. The [b]majority [/b]of games are multi-platform these days.

[quote name='DavidGArce1337' timestamp='1352843892' post='5000687']
PS3 and 360 play 720p and 1080p games. Some at 30FPS some at 60FPS. The rig I mentioned above was built for 1080p gaming, and a baseline budget build price of $1,200. I'm simply asking for a PC or Laptop that can give me "Current Console Resolutions" and "Frames per Second" at console prices or not much higher. Not possible.
[/quote]

PS3 and 360 play 720p and 1080p at dramatically reduced visual quality compared to a PC. You can easily build a PC that will run at console resolutions and fps if you turn down the visual quality. Since you didn't provide a link, I can't be sure, but I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that the "1080p rig" is designed for playing at high quality. Seriously, the current generation of consoles are nearly 6 years old. Pretty much [i]any[/i] modern pc with a discrete gpu will be better than them.
[quote name='DavidGArce1337' timestamp='1352843892' post='5000687']
TV's are more common than Monitors and Computers, I think.
[/quote]

So use a tv with your pc then.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most console games run in 720p -- many recent ones (e.g. Halo's etc) internally render at an even smaller resolution and upscale to 720p.
Not very many internally render at 1080p. Even Wipeout HD, which calls itself the only 1080p 60Hz PS3 game, uses resolution up-scaling ([i]e.g. from 1920*810 -> 1920*1080[/i]).

Also, almost every modern console game makes use of mixed resolution rendering, where large parts of the processing occur in resolutions such as 640*360.

One reason console games prefer low resolution is simply because they're often pixel-shading bound, and simply using less pixels is a great optimization ([i]720p is about [b]half[/b] the memory/processing cost of 1080p, and 640*360 is 1/4 the cost of 720p.[/i]) i.e. a pixel-bound 30Hz 720p game would run at 15Hz at 1080p.
Another is the 360 can only render into 10MiB of EDRAM -- a 720p FP16 (HDR) target and a depth buffer exceeds the EDRAM size ([i]which means you'd have to render in two passes, paying the vertex/setup cost twice[/i]), but a 1280*680 or 1210*720 FP16+D24S8 combo fits perfectly.

@DavidGArce1337 - your MaximumPC build is designed to run the latest games at the highest detail settings in 1080p at 60Hz.
The 360/PS3 probably runs the same games on lowest detail, at sub 720p at [i]mostly [/i]30Hz (dropping below sometimes). So... you're comparing apples and oranges.

A PS3 quality GPU ([i]e.g. 7900GT 256MB[/i]) costs under $10 these days.
A 360 quality GPU is about the same price ([i]maybe ~8800 GT level[/i]).
A console-quality PC is pretty damn cheap to build, actually, but you'll be playing the latest games in very low resolutions and using low detail settings, just like your console does.


Every PC game ([i]that benefits from a gamepad[/i]) that I've played in the last few years has had perfect support for my 360 gamepad -- because they're also released on 360/PS3, so have spent the time creating good gamepad controls... Edited by Hodgman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to say, but the main advantage of consoles is that they are so damn convenient. Every time in the past 3 years I've played a new PC game, it took hours to get installed, get the video drivers updated, oops- backdate the drivers to a more functional version, set up the controls, juggle the settings to figure out the optimum graphics experience for playability and uggliness, shit, get the latest patch and turn off all the background software I have running... to start playing.

Whereas Halo 4 multiplayer was an outlier having you install the disk and a small patch before letting you find a match, so it was maybe 10 minutes at the most from putting the disk in to playing the game.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352857876' post='5000745']
Since you didn't provide a link, I can't be sure, but I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that the "1080p rig" is designed for playing at high quality.
[/quote]

I have the magazine...the important parts: Intel Core i5-3570k, GTX 660 Power Ed., 8GB DDR3/1600 RAM.

[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1352857876' post='5000745']
So use a tv with your pc then.
[/quote]

Not the point. Getting a PC to work on your TV, preHDMI was not always nice.

[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1352860211' post='5000759']
Most console games run in 720p -- many recent ones (e.g. Halo's etc) internally render at an even smaller resolution and upscale to 720p.
Not very many internally render at 1080p.
[/quote]

I'd like to read that information, sources?

[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1352860211' post='5000759']
Also, almost every modern console game makes use of mixed resolution rendering, where large parts of the processing occur in resolutions such as 640*360.
[/quote]

Dropping down to that resolution would be very noticeable...But, are you saying that this is not done on the ports to PC of such games?

[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1352860211' post='5000759']
Another is the 360 can only render into 10MiB of EDRAM
[/quote]

Isn't eDRAM an advantage?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A GTX 660 is about 5 generations of GPU hardware designs ahead of the PS3's RSX, and almost 200 times more powerful in FLOPS.
Even a modern Intel CPU's built in hardware acceleration will give the RSX a run for it's money!
That PC spec is definitely aimed at delivering much higher quality than current-gen consoles do.
[quote name='DavidGArce1337' timestamp='1352881567' post='5000828']
Dropping down to that resolution would be very noticeable...But, are you saying that this is not done on the ports to PC of such games?
[/quote]It's noticable for high-frequency details. Many details only change at a low frequency (except at edges), like indirect lighting, ambient occlusion, smoke/dust absorbtion, circle-of-confusion radius, etc... These can be computed at low-resolution, and then upscaled with a bilateral filter to fix edges, or the edges can be re-rendered at high resolution ([i]using Hi-Stencil to avoid re-rendering the upscaled data[/i]).
PC games likely use the same techniques, especially when selecting low detail settings. It's a standard optimization these days -- e.g. if playing in 2048*1152 on PC, expect some calculations to take place at 1024*576.
Perhaps if you select uber detail settings, they'd not perform these optimizations.
[quote]I'd like to read that information, sources?[/quote][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_3#Graphics"]Halo 3[/url] internally uses 1152×640, Reach internally uses 1152 x 720, however Halo 4 uses a new engine that apparently uses full 720p.
I remember Bungie explained their choice somewhere ([i]probably [url="http://www.bungie.net/inside/publications.aspx"]here[/url][/i]), but googling [[font=courier new,courier,monospace]halo 720p 640 1152[/font]] brings up some other links besides the wikipedia one above.

You can find [url="http://wikibin.org/articles/list-of-full-hd-1080p-ps3-games.html"]lists like this[/url] by searching for something like [1080p ps3 games], but keep in mind that these will include false-positives --
When a game boosts, it checks your XMB/dashboard settings to see what your desired TV resolution is, and then it can choose to create it's "front buffer" at that resolution, or a lower one ([i]e.g. if you've selected 1080i, the game can still make a 720p front buffer[/i]). However, even if the game does create a 1080p front buffer, it may still be rendering at 720p and then up-scaling the results to 1080p itself.
[edit]Here's a good list: [url="http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241"]http://forum.beyond3...ead.php?t=46241[/url][/edit]

Most games choose 720p over 1080p because it's half the pixel cost, and compared to modern PC's, the consoles suck at pixel processing.
Games with a lot of pressure to look great (like Halo or Modern Warfare) often go further, like the 640p example. Others dynamically change the resolution, like Wipeout. The last game I worked on, we'd time the GPU and if it started taking more than 33ms per frame, we'd continually reduce the horizontal resolution until the frame times stabilized ([i]or until we hit a minimum resolution of 1024*720[/i]).
[quote name='DavidGArce1337' timestamp='1352881567' post='5000828']Isn't eDRAM an advantage?[/quote]It's good and bad. It's separate to the regular 512MiB of RAM, which means if you want to bind a render-target and keep it's previous contents, then you've got to copy the previous contents from RAM into eDRAM. When you've finished rendering a render-target, you've also got to copy the results out of eDRAM into regular RAM. This means that switching render-targets can be very expensive on the 360 so you've got to avoid it ([i]on other GPU's, switching render-targets can be as simple as changing a single pointer[/i]).
Another down-side is that eDRAM is fixed size, and fairly small -- just 10MiB on the 360. This makes deferred rendering very hard ([i]e.g. a 720p G-Buffer with 3 layers + a depth buffer is 14MiB[/i]) and also makes HDR complicated ([i]e.g. a 720p RGBA FP16 + depth buffer is 10.5MiB[/i]). If you want to use those types of render-targets, then you either have to reduce their resolution until they do fit into the 10MiB limit, or split the target into multiple parts, and render your scene twice (doubling your vertex cost).
The upside is that eDRAM is lighting fast, so you're almost never [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_Output_unit"]ROP[/url] bound, even with alpha blending and high bits-per-pixel formats. Edited by Hodgman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0