PC SUBJECT TO XBOX "LIMITATIONS"

[vappour]

Hey, I was just reading an article over at starwars.com by Chris Avellone of Obsidian. He was writing about the development cycle for Kotor 2. One of the main factors, according to him, was working around the "Xbox's limitations." Anybody know what that means for us PC gamers? Is this the reason we have smaller maps, poorer graphics, etc.? Is it true? Another game written for the box and ported to the PC as an afterthought. This is becoming more and more common. Thank God for Half Life 2 and even Doom 3. Maybe PC games will finally get good enough to "break" the damn consoles.

[Master_Splinter]

I dunno, for me it's all about gameplay. I don't care much about really big maps or graphics. As long as it has good framerates and a good storyline I'm game. That's why I didn't like Doom 3, sure it's a breakthrough, but the gameplay was pretty poor, and it got really repetitive. And there really was no story to it. As for RPG's, it would be nice to have bigger maps maybe. But as long as the frames are good and we get a good storyline, I'm game

[vappour]

I hear you and agree. It's just that the PC is capable of much more than the box, and it's a shame that a game has to be "dumbed down" just so the box can handle it. You're right, it's about the gameplay, but were not getting all that is possible on reasonably new systems. Doom 3 is a terrible game to play but the graphics are great (although kind of dark), and if you see the Xbox struggle with it you'll understand what I mean. This is becoming more and more of an issue as developers go for as many bucks as possible (I guess you can't blame them but is sucks)

[213374U]

Thank God for Half Life 2 and even Doom 3.  Maybe PC games will finally get good enough to "break" the damn consoles.

If the only games we are going to get for the PC are Xbox conversions and HL2 & Doom3 look-alikes, I'm going to be buying less and less games until one day when I will quit gaming altogether.

[Astatine]

I think a lot of new cross platform games are being built for the next gen consoles (Xbox2, PS3) as well as the PC, and not for the existing consoles, now (I know this is the case with TES IV: Oblivion). The next gen platforms are a lot less limited and so shrinking games so that they fit on an ageing console will be less of an issue.

[Judge Hades]

Yes, but the games will still be of no worth due to the challenge levels being non-existant.

[vappour]

Thank God for Half Life 2 and even Doom 3.  Maybe PC games will finally get good enough to "break" the damn consoles.

If the only games we are going to get for the PC are Xbox conversions and HL2 & Doom3 look-alikes, I'm going to be buying less and less games until one day when I will quit gaming altogether.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Good point. And it's one of the things I'm worried about.

[Ludozee]

Hey, I was just reading an article over at starwars.com by Chris Avellone of Obsidian.  He was writing about the development cycle for Kotor 2.  One of the main factors, according to him, was working around the "Xbox's limitations."  Anybody know what that means for us PC gamers? Is this the reason we have smaller maps, poorer graphics, etc.?  Is it true?  Another game written for the box and ported to the PC as an afterthought.  This is becoming more and more common.  Thank God for Half Life 2 and even Doom 3.  Maybe PC games will finally get good enough to "break" the damn consoles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it is the other way around. They had to adapt a PC engine to an X-box. I think the X-Box version is actually a downgraded PC version.

Can't proof it though, but it makes sense to me.

[Sorwen]

Hey, I was just reading an article over at starwars.com by Chris Avellone of Obsidian.  He was writing about the development cycle for Kotor 2.  One of the main factors, according to him, was working around the "Xbox's limitations."  Anybody know what that means for us PC gamers? Is this the reason we have smaller maps, poorer graphics, etc.?  Is it true?  Another game written for the box and ported to the PC as an afterthought.  This is becoming more and more common.  Thank God for Half Life 2 and even Doom 3.  Maybe PC games will finally get good enough to "break" the damn consoles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it is the other way around. They had to adapt a PC engine to an X-box. I think the X-Box version is actually a downgraded PC version.

Can't proof it though, but it makes sense to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, as KoToR was made for the XBox. Bioware stated this many times. They were also nice and gave us a PC version. Likely it was originally just to back up sales if the XBox version failed. Since KoToR 2 is built on the same engine and is/was hoped to cash in on KoToR's success on the XBox it is also a game built for the XBox. They upgrade the textures(among a few other things) as a direct port would be crappy for a pc.

[Ludozee]

No, as KoToR was made for the XBox.  Bioware stated this many times.  They were also nice and gave us a PC version.  Likely it was originally just to back up sales if the XBox version failed.  Since KoToR 2 is built on the same engine and is/was hoped to cash in on KoToR's success on the XBox it is also a game built for the XBox.  They upgrade the textures(among a few other things) as a direct port would be crappy for a pc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but the X-Box is basically a PC inside, so the core of the engine is exactly the same for borh versions, and the KotOR engine is derived from the aurora engine.

[Ostkant]

Maybe you can get it into your small head(s) that some people just don't afford this and that upgrade parts for a PC, not to mention inserting the weird things into the PC, which is something I cannot be bothered with doing myself.

 

I bought Xbox because it would run Star Wars Battlefront, which my PC could not run (only very poorly).

 

Consoles have always been the foundation of games, and they should not be seen as something useless that the PC easily conquers.

 

Good for you if you got some monster-PC, but we all can't have that.

[Judge Hades]

I don't have a monster PC. I have a midrange PC.

[213374U]

Maybe you can get it into your small head(s) that some people just don't afford this and that upgrade parts for a PC, not to mention inserting the weird things into the PC, which is something I cannot be bothered with doing myself.

 

I bought Xbox because it would run Star Wars Battlefront, which my PC could not run (only very poorly).

 

Consoles have always been the foundation of games, and they should not be seen as something useless that the PC easily conquers.

 

Good for you if you got some monster-PC, but we all can't have that.

So, what you're saying is that, just because you can't afford a good PC, gaming should be focused on consoles and the rest of us PC gamers that don't want to have anything to do with consoles should just settle for whatever crappy conversions they make?

 

Whoa, you sure thought that thoroughly before you posted!

[Ludozee]

Maybe you can get it into your small head(s) that some people just don't afford this and that upgrade parts for a PC, not to mention inserting the weird things into the PC, which is something I cannot be bothered with doing myself.

Ok. Point taken, but please refrain from patronzing and adressing people in a offending way.

 

Consoles have always been the foundation of games, and they should not be seen as something useless that the PC easily conquers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IMO that is BS. PC's and games go way back, and FYI, a decent PC easily conquers any console.

[jedipodo]

(...)One of the main factors, according to him, was working around the "Xbox's limitations."  Anybody know what that means for us PC gamers? Is this the reason we have smaller maps, poorer graphics, etc.?  Is it true? (...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, it is true... smaller maps, less complexity, simpler game mechanics, etc.

 

I don't know exactly, but hasn't the Xbox a total of 64MB RAM? If this is so this should be the explanation to your question.

 

And concerning the overall performance you can assume that an average PC's graphics card has at least one XBox in it.

[ampulator00]

(...)One of the main factors, according to him, was working around the "Xbox's limitations."  Anybody know what that means for us PC gamers? Is this the reason we have smaller maps, poorer graphics, etc.?  Is it true? (...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, it is true... smaller maps, less complexity, simpler game mechanics, etc.

 

I don't know exactly, but hasn't the Xbox a total of 64MB RAM? If this is so this should be the explanation to your question.

 

And concerning the overall performance you can assume that an average PC's graphics card has at least one XBox in it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The norm for PC these days is at least 128 MB RAM. It's not even that hard to find cheap ones.

[Darth Ni]

Is that 64MB of video ram? Or is that 64MB of shared system ram? And the normal for pc users these days is around 128mb of vram. For system RAM, its around 512-1024.

[The Coordinator]

No, as KoToR was made for the XBox.  Bioware stated this many times.  They were also nice and gave us a PC version.  Likely it was originally just to back up sales if the XBox version failed.  Since KoToR 2 is built on the same engine and is/was hoped to cash in on KoToR's success on the XBox it is also a game built for the XBox.  They upgrade the textures(among a few other things) as a direct port would be crappy for a pc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but the X-Box is basically a PC inside, so the core of the engine is exactly the same for borh versions, and the KotOR engine is derived from the aurora engine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah, and the pc/xbox version of KotOR run under directX and use a similiar windows version.

But the craphics chip of the Xbox is a special version of the gf4ti with 64mb shared memory. *shudder*

 

 

@Darth Ni: He must mean 128mb Vram. Or elsewhise I had to slap him.

[AlanC9]

Even crappy PCs can run KotOR. I ran KotOR on a machine with Intel integrated video, and it worked OK.

 

That's my work machine -- my gaming machine's got a Kyro 2 vidcard. No T&L means really bad lighting.

[Judge Hades]

I have 256 mb VRAM and 512 mb RAM.

[ampulator00]

Is that 64MB of video ram? Or is that 64MB of shared system ram? And the normal for pc users these days is around 128mb of vram. For system RAM, its around 512-1024.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Naw, the mininum today for system RAM is 128 MB RAM, due to the availability of ones are that good quality and very cheap at the same time.

 

Video ram is at least 64 MB RAM. Technically, most games can handle fine with only 32 MB RAM of VRAM anyway, but it is not too common anymore.

 

If you ask me, for most basic gaming, a fast, up-to-date CPU is better long term upgrade, unless you already have a good one, or have a really bad or old memory or video card.

 

I prioritize as follows:

 

1. Motherboard

2. CPU

3. Memory

4. Video Card

[213374U]

I have 256 mb VRAM and 512 mb RAM.

Your point?

[Jad'en]

I have 256 mb VRAM and 512 mb RAM.

Your point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That isnt that much

 

I managed to get 2 1gb Ram sticks so now my computer can run most games on Ram alone :D

[213374U]

I prioritize as follows:

 

1. Motherboard

2. CPU

3. Memory

4. Video Card

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep. Those are my priorities too. I have read some really good things about the latest NForce-powered AMD boards, and it seems that having a good CPU and motherboard are the tipping factors on game performance, since I don't really believe there's much difference in performance between ATI and nVidia.

 

Right so, what does this have to do with the original topic anyway?

[ampulator00]

I prioritize as follows:

 

1. Motherboard

2. CPU

3. Memory

4. Video Card

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep. Those are my priorities too. I have read some really good things about the latest NForce-powered AMD boards, and it seems that having a good CPU and motherboard are the tipping factors on game performance, since I don't really believe there's much difference in performance between ATI and nVidia.

 

Right so, what does this have to do with the original topic anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, CPU's are more long term investments; they are always making better video cards, and they are only getting better anyway, and if it's not huge speed improvements they offer, it is the latest features, which most games developers don't use for a while to come; I already have a ATI RAdeon 9500 Pro, and I'm fine with it.

 

CPU's on the other hand, are getting faster, but with each speed leap, it gets harder and haraer to see the improvements, so if I get a good CPU at an even better price, chances are I don't have to worry about it for years.

 

And good memory is pretty cheap too.

 

And for those who are getting newer and better video cards; you might take a hard, good, long look at your motherboard, CPU, and memory.

A good video card that is bottlenecked by slow/bad motherboard/CPU/memory is not very useful, while a system with good motherboard/CPU/memory with a slow video card should run fine, save for features.

 

I have 256 mb VRAM and 512 mb RAM.

Your point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That isnt that much

 

I managed to get 2 1gb Ram sticks so now my computer can run most games on Ram alone :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's great, but how many memory slots do you have? If you have at least four slots, woulldn't it be better to have four sticks of 512 MB RAM?

 

If you have three slots, two sticks of 512 MB RAM, and one stick of 1GB RAM?

 

And oh yeah, I just want to also, VRAM is usuall not very important for most games.

 

I think they are certain driver settings that forces games to use up all the VRAM first, and then use system memory.