ZFGokuSSJ1
Rear Admiral
You're a born-again Commander.
The 3DO recieved Wing Commander 3 as well. In fact that was pretty much my whole justification for purchasing the system.ChanceKell said:Actually, Wing Commander (and it's add-on campaigns) were ported very well to the Super Nintendo, and then there was the 3DO port with it's improved graphics and sound (Super WC, also for Apples). The PSX ports of WC 3 and 4 were decent, though they did cut out the land missions, but it did have some features the PC versions DIDN'T have.
Than what?Ironically, looking back on it, it seems that console ports were more accurately copied from their PC versions.
Hehe, the difficulty of porting a game from the PC to a console in those days was not really affected by the graphics so much as it was by the fact what console games were written in assembly.Older DOS games with simple graphics were a lot easier to port over, compared to the modern 3D games.
I want you to think back to 1994 and tell me if the computer you owned was significantly superior to a Playstation or Saturn. And then think a little harder and tell me if the majority of the games you played on that computer look, sound, or play any better. Or even as well.The "third-gen" consoles (PSX, N64, Saturn) were technologically backwards compared to the PCs that were coming out at the time.
Frosty said:The 3DO recieved Wing Commander 3 as well. In fact that was pretty much my whole justification for purchasing the system.
webe123 said:@Bandit Loaf.....you mean to tell me that you think a console could blow away something like a Pentium 4 system (3.4 gig processor) with a Radeon 9800xt and the newest sound card? I mean, I know gaming has come a long way in the console arena, but it will never match the speed of a PC in graphics and sound. What about the quake series of games? There are others, but I cannot recall them right now. Even though consoles of today are very fast and dedicated systems, you cannot change out the processor, video card, sound card or RAM like a computer can....ALL of these things affect the speed and graphics of a game. Now if they made a console where you COULD change out the processor,etc. and put faster ones in, THAT would rock!
PrinceThrakhath said:The biggest drawback is picture quality.. not because of the graphic chip but because it's limited by the TV it uses as a screen. A PC monitor simply has a much higher resolution and better quality.
You're really asking for it, there. Protip: Calling people dumb does not endear you to them. Take it from a master of calling people dumb.webe123 said:Well the only reason I brought up the console issue, is that I was stating if another WC game is ever created, I don't want it "dumbed down" to accomidate the console crowd!
What the hell do you think ports are, but separate versions?Yes, it does cost a little more to have two SEPERATE versions,
You, apparently, lack any sort of knowledge on what is entailed in developing a game for the PC. There is no "optimizing." The range of performance characteristics and component combinations in brand-new computers is staggering all by its lonesome. Lump in all essentially current machines (those less than two years old) and you have quite a wide variety of totally different systems that share nothing accross them, not even the company that made their operating system, let alone DirectX versions.but I think that games that take this route can offer the best for each system. Because the game can be optomized to play on that particular system without giving up any important gameplay issues, weather it is a console or PC version.
You mean @me.@Bandit Loaf.....
I mean they do it every day.you mean to tell me that you think a console could blow away something like a Pentium 4 system (3.4 gig processor) with a Radeon 9800xt and the newest sound card?
You are exceedingly skilled in missing the point. I shall spell it out for you: I do not care how fast the latest PC is, nobody writes tailor-made software for it. A modern PC game is designed to work on a range of systems so broad it would boggle your mind, which probably isn't saying much, but I think everyone will understand what I'm trying to say anyhow.I mean, I know gaming has come a long way in the console arena, but it will never match the speed of a PC in graphics and sound.
What about them?What about the quake series of games?
I cannot convey my astonishment at that statement using the tools provided me.There are others, but I cannot recall them right now.
No, and thank god. Not only does that help reduce the cost - Both of my systems cost less than a new video card - but it also forces the standardization which is a console's greatest advantage.Even though consoles of today are very fast and dedicated systems, you cannot change out the processor, video card, sound card or RAM like a computer can....
Not nearly as much as you think. What affects the speed and quality of a game's graphics and sound are the decisions made by the developers with respect to their target market, and how narrow it is.ALL of these things affect the speed and graphics of a game.
No it wouldn't, it'd just be a PC. I already own one of those. A very fast, expensive one. The trouble is none of the games I own take advantage of it fully or efficiently because a lot of software is written for poor people who can't afford a modern computer but still want to play all the cool new games, or people like cff who have unreasonable expectations about their software, and want each successive edition of Windows to run each previous version's software perfectly.Now if they made a console where you COULD change out the processor,etc. and put faster ones in, THAT would rock!
I don't know, I'm pretty satisfied with the picture quality of my 47" HDTV. Sure it might not look so great on a 13" bubblevision special, but this is 2004. Get a job and get with it.PrinceThrakhath said:The biggest drawback is picture quality.. not because of the graphic chip but because it's limited by the TV it uses as a screen.
I want you to think back to 1994 and tell me if the computer you owned was significantly superior to a Playstation or Saturn. And then think a little harder and tell me if the majority of the games you played on that computer look, sound, or play any better. Or even as well.
I loved the 3DO; I was disappointed when the WC4 port was scrapped.
@Bandit Loaf.....you mean to tell me that you think a console could blow away something like a Pentium 4 system (3.4 gig processor) with a Radeon 9800xt and the newest sound card? I
Frosty said:You're really asking for it, there. Protip: Calling people dumb does not endear you to them. Take it from a master of calling people dumb.
Frosty said:What the hell do you think ports are, but separate versions?You, apparently, lack any sort of knowledge on what is entailed in developing a game for the PC..
Frosty said:There is no "optimizing." The range of performance characteristics and component combinations in brand-new computers is staggering all by its lonesome. Lump in all essentially current machines (those less than two years old) and you have quite a wide variety of totally different systems that share nothing accross them, not even the company that made their operating system, let alone DirectX versions.
Frosty said:You mean @me.I mean they do it every day.You are exceedingly skilled in missing the point. .
Frosty said:I shall spell it out for you: I do not care how fast the latest PC is, nobody writes tailor-made software for it. A modern PC game is designed to work on a range of systems so broad it would boggle your mind, which probably isn't saying much, but I think everyone will understand what I'm trying to say anyhow..
Frosty said:With a console like the X-Box or the Gamecube, and to a lesser extend the Playstation 2, developers can maximize the system's capabilities when designing their game, to get the absolute best from their product.
Frosty said:The issue is not the hardware. I believe I made it abundantly clear in my previous post that I know full well that console hardware is primitive by comparison, especially so far as we are now into the current generation's lifespan. The issue is the software written for the various systems. Because PCs are not exactly a standardization poster child, it is impossible to get the most out of any single machine without disregarded essentially every other machine. Bad decision..
Frosty said:What about them?
Frosty said:I cannot convey my astonishment at that statement using the tools provided me.
Frosty said:No, and thank god. Not only does that help reduce the cost - Both of my systems cost less than a new video card - but it also forces the standardization which is a console's greatest advantage..
Frosty said:Not nearly as much as you think. What affects the speed and quality of a game's graphics and sound are the decisions made by the developers with respect to their target market, and how narrow it is.
Frosty said:No it wouldn't, it'd just be a PC. I already own one of those. A very fast, expensive one. The trouble is none of the games I own take advantage of it fully or efficiently because a lot of software is written for poor people who can't afford a modern computer but still want to play all the cool new games, or people like cff who have unreasonable expectations about their software, and want each successive edition of Windows to run each previous version's software perfectly.
Frosty said:I know your kind, and I really can't stand them. You're a snob, and one of the most idiotic, pointless kind. There is no reason not to like game consoles. My Gamecube has provided me with hours of enjoyment from games you've probably not even heard of, because they're not available for your PC, and it was only 150 dollars brand new, and still current. I paid 12 dollars more than that for my now horribly outdated video card which can do nothing on its own..
Frosty said:Have you ever used X-Box Live? That's another textbook example of a standardized environment delivering superior results. It is the most fully-featured and easily accessed multiplayer gaming community in existence, and it costs next to nothing. I have more fun playing Live games with the #Wingnut crew than I ever had playing CS on public servers with a bunch of random idiots...
Frosty said:When it comes to games, consoles do it best. They're purpose-built for that very reason. I love my PC, and when I build new PCs, I spare no expense, but I hold no illusions about their supposed superiority over consoles. A game console is a track-ready Ferrari, a new PC is a really fast Camaro. I like them both, but when it's time to get the job done, I know which I'd pick.I don't know, I'm pretty satisfied with the picture quality of my 47" HDTV. Sure it might not look so great on a 13" bubblevision special, but this is 2004. Get a job and get with it.
Clearly, the implication made when claiming that something must be "dumbed down" is that the intended audience is dumb. I don't know about you, but where I come from, words mean things.webe123 said:Well I don't know if it has gotten through your thick head, but I said "dumbed down" ...as in simplified...where do you get me calling anybody dumb??
What? No, it makes you a know-nothing.Gee, and I guess that makes YOU a know it all??
It has everything to do with everything. It does not matter if you are talking about a state-of-the-art machine, because all it can do is run the same low-resolution textures and the same low-detail meshes at a faster framerate, woohoo. Meanwhile, console games are chugging along from day 1 maximizing all the features of the hardware, because all the hardware is the same.Yes, there are staggering combinations in computers....what the hell does THAT have to doi with anything?? I was talking about a top of the line system, you were the one that came up with all of these other combiunations! I was just simply stating my opinion (which that is all it is) that I think PCs are faster than consoles. So what is your problem??
Well my television can do 1080i, which has, I believe, 1036800 usable pixels. I run my PC games at 1024x768 which sports 786432 total pixels. So juding by those numbers alone, I'd bet that the clarity of games in 1080i on my television is superior to that of games on my PC. By a lot.If you have a high end system that can run games like quake 3 and such they are probably gonna be a little clearer on the screen! Not something to get into a flame war about!
This is not a matter of opinion. There's the truth, supported by fact, and then there's your wacky assumptions, supported by petty prejudices.if you don't agree then that is fine too, but to HELL with YOU trying to make small of my opinion!
Of course it has limites. All I am saying is that those limits are far in excess of those imposed on mainstream PC software as a result of the performance spectrum they're forced to work with.Is that supposed to mean I am going to stop buying PC games or console games for that matter?? I agree that an optimized system like a console is great for games, but it does have limits! That was all I was saying!
Well good for you, but that's not really necessary. I know that PC games have excellent graphics. I also know that almost every one of my console games sports a much more polished presentation than my PC games.I was just pointing out a computer game that has decent graphics!
Uhoh, I'd better head for the hills, wouldn't want a 3-day-old forum newbie to get mad at me!well if you want a fight, just keep it up!
Yours is wrong and is offensive to me.Again that is YOUR opinion and you are entitled to it, but mine is different. SO WHAT???
Chris has already illustrated certain examples of this already in practice...I still think that it would rock to be able to replace the components of a console...
Bad idea, because it forces the gamer into one of two undesirable scenarios:and if you have a standard console system already, it would be up to you to change out the parts.
It will never hurt, but it won't make the graphics better. You can get a higher frame-rate or run it at a higher resolution or both, but it's still the same old textures and models . Buying the latest and greatest sound card does nothing for you if the game still only supports EAX1.Yes the developers of the game have a lot to do with the way the game plays, but a faster system never hurts.
On the contrary, I think in the context of videogames it makes them exactly the same. The end result is that the console hardware environment, which was one pristine, becomes as confused and optional as the PC's, forcing the developers to avoid pushing the limits, in order to appeal to the largest number of customers for the purposes of increasing profits.Let me spell out something for YOU, Replacing parts on a console does NOT make it a pc!
I do keep up with the latest technology. I spend 200 dollars every four years to buy a new console, and that serves me just fine. It's also a huge bargain compared to PC upgrades, and probably cheaper than your kind of console upgrades would be as well. Plus, upgrading consoles in any significant want opens up a whole slew of problems with respect to warranties and services.The only thing I was suggesting, was being able to replace parts in a console, so that it could keep up with the latest technology!
No, what makes it a bad thing is the fact that it's a bad thing.Now just because you are against it, does NOT make it a bad thing!
I learned that a long time ago. What you need to learn is that your point of view is not necessarily always as valid or as valued as everyone else's.It's time you learned that there are other points of view besides your own!
How Derek Smart of you.Now you have flamed me, acted like I was a fool, and I am quite frankly TIRED OF YOUR BULLSHIT!
I reached that conclusion, logically, through analasys of the things you said. What amuses me, though, is that you allow yourself to become so worked up over the fact that I assumed you didn't like game consoles.you don't know a thing about me and yet you reach that conclusion??
Last time I checked, sister, you were the one who initiated the PC vs console debate with your "dumbed down" comment.No, but I have seen the xbox graphics and they are great! So again, what is your PROBLEM????? GET OFF THE PC vs. console kick you are on! It is getting REAL OLD!
Topic drift. Shit happens.This thread originally was about how great wing commander was as a series so HOW did we get on THIS????
A little tidbit of forum etiquette for you: Don't yell "GO SOMEPLACE ELSE!" at people who have logged more years in the community than you have days.If all you want to do is flame me and throw insults my way because I have a different opinion that yours, GO SOMEPLACE ELSE!
Actually, it seems like you're mad because I challenged your (flawed) opinion, not the other way around.If you are mad because my opinion is different than yours....GET OVER IT!
Well, be my guest and attempt to steer it that way. All threads go OT eventually, especially around here.Either way, this thread needs to get back to the subject...WHICH IS NOT consoles vs PC, but wing commander!
Frosty said:Clearly, the implication made when claiming that something must be "dumbed down" is that the intended audience is dumb. I don't know about you, but where I come from, words mean things.What? No, it makes you a know-nothing.It has everything to do with everything. It does not matter if you are talking about a state-of-the-art machine, because all it can do is run the same low-resolution textures and the same low-detail meshes at a faster framerate, woohoo. Meanwhile, console games are chugging along from day 1 maximizing all the features of the hardware, because all the hardware is the same.Well my television can do 1080i, which has, I believe, 1036800 usable pixels. I run my PC games at 1024x768 which sports 786432 total pixels. So juding by those numbers alone, I'd bet that the clarity of games in 1080i on my television is superior to that of games on my PC. By a lot.
Even at the lowest resolution of 480p I think we're still dealing with 409600 pixels, which is still pretty good.This is not a matter of opinion. There's the truth, supported by fact, and then there's your wacky assumptions, supported by petty prejudices.Of course it has limites. All I am saying is that those limits are far in excess of those imposed on mainstream PC software as a result of the performance spectrum they're forced to work with.Well good for you, but that's not really necessary. I know that PC games have excellent graphics. I also know that almost every one of my console games sports a much more polished presentation than my PC games.
I do not love one or the other more because of such things, but I am able to recognize the truth: Any PC game can be ported to a modern console without damaging it.Uhoh, I'd better head for the hills, wouldn't want a 3-day-old forum newbie to get mad at me!Yours is wrong and is offensive to me.Chris has already illustrated certain examples of this already in practice...Bad idea, because it forces the gamer into one of two undesirable scenarios:Now before you go and call me crazy and say it wouldn't be like that, I want you to know that it already has happened.
- The gamer is forced to upgrade their system in order to play new games that require the upgrade, thereby making it a necessity, and not up to them, as you suggested, or...
- The gamer upgrades their system but it's largely for nothing, because any games which do not support the upgrade (and many will not, in order to appeal to the largest number of customers,) will not benefit noticeably from the upgrade, and so it offers no discernable advantage.
The example Chris mentioned, the N64 RAM upgrade, was nothing but an irritation no matter what side of it you were on. If you did not purchase it, games which required it would not run, and some very popular games required it (granted, certain games also included it - at an increase in cost.) If you did purchase it, you quickly found you bought an upgrade that existed for the sole purpose of letting you run about three games, and offered no benefits at all to any games that ran without it.It will never hurt, but it won't make the graphics better. You can get a higher frame-rate or run it at a higher resolution or both, but it's still the same old textures and models . Buying the latest and greatest sound card does nothing for you if the game still only supports EAX1.On the contrary, I think in the context of videogames it makes them exactly the same. The end result is that the console hardware environment, which was one pristine, becomes as confused and optional as the PC's, forcing the developers to avoid pushing the limits, in order to appeal to the largest number of customers for the purposes of increasing profits.I do keep up with the latest technology. I spend 200 dollars every four years to buy a new console, and that serves me just fine. It's also a huge bargain compared to PC upgrades, and probably cheaper than your kind of console upgrades would be as well. Plus, upgrading consoles in any significant want opens up a whole slew of problems with respect to warranties and services.
Here's an example: Retail PCs have warranties which are voided if you upgrade them, or even just open the case, and I would expect the same from console manufacturers. Purchasing a console upgrade which voided your warranty would become extremely expensive if the optical drive began to fail (which is a known issue with modern consoles,) because you would not be able to get it replaced by the manufacturer. You'd have to buy another.
Here's another: Microsoft will not allow modded X-Boxes onto X-Box Live because they cannot guarantee that the modifications don't give certain players an unfair advantage. They certainly couldn't make that guarantee for legitimate upgrades, either - it's a fact that a faster machine is a usable advantage in a multiplayer game. They would be forced to either ban upgraded machines from Live, or to allow them to walk all over the non-upgraded users, thereby ruining their experience.No, what makes it a bad thing is the fact that it's a bad thing.I learned that a long time ago. What you need to learn is that your point of view is not necessarily always as valid or as valued as everyone else's.How Derek Smart of you.I reached that conclusion, logically, through analasys of the things you said. What amuses me, though, is that you allow yourself to become so worked up over the fact that I assumed you didn't like game consoles.Last time I checked, sister, you were the one who initiated the PC vs console debate with your "dumbed down" comment. Topic drift. Shit happens.A little tidbit of forum etiquette for you: Don't yell "GO SOMEPLACE ELSE!" at people who have logged more years in the community than you have days.Actually, it seems like you're mad because I challenged your (flawed) opinion, not the other way around.Well, be my guest and attempt to steer it that way. All threads go OT eventually, especially around here.