Badsight Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 THis maybe premature since the PC patch is immanent(?), but I was wondering if anyone has both the PC and Xbox KOTOR 2's and which one played more smoothly/had an overall better feel? Thanks in advance for any information. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> there isnt any competiton a PC is smooth the Xbox is not its simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badsight Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 oh and another thing . . . . walk around games where you shoot , fight , or do stuff , are 100% better with a mouse than a toggle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BattleCookiee Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 When the X-Box allows me to surf the web, let me do my writing, download mods and patches, view jpeg pics and photomanipulation, as well as play my MP3s at the same time that is when I will buy a X-Box. It already exists, and is called "PC" Have fun finding one (w00t) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badsight Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 you wont ever see a Xbox slow down due to "coolwebsearch" or "about:blank" you wont ever see a un-modded xbox owner having to reformat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tratious Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 PC Wins by A long shot all the things you can do to make it run in a pc whoo 2 or 3 gigs memory :D :D compared with xbox 64 mb memory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Flatus Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 This thread reminds of the nintendo vs sega wars of the early 90's - when i say wars i mean arguments in the playground. regarding games i would take teh pc versions if there is a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Lets see Xbox version played out of the box with no real problems. The quicker MS kills off the PC as a viable games platform the better. People have become too used to the low quality crap now. For anything to change, patches are just accepted as normal. It is inevitable just as previous platforms were replaced the PC as a games platform is no longer the first choice. I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BattleCookiee Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 The quicker MS kills off the PC as a viable games platform the better. People have become too used to the low quality crap now. For anything to change, patches are just accepted as normal. It is inevitable just as previous platforms were replaced the PC as a games platform is no longer the first choice. ? PC has the most crap? If I recall correct the Consoles are overrun by low-quality games who are no fun. Bug free, yes, but totally boring and no fun at all... And all the GOOD console games (few) are converted to PC-versions anyway for the extra cash... Plus, on PC you get to play games were you should think (usual console games: Press Button Fast, Faster, Faster, yah Enemy Down! "Wow, what a fun, after 304992 times in this game") Those patches usually are bonusses instead of the "bring soon, patch up for the working" Lucasarts seem to have now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yst Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Lets see Xbox version played out of the box with no real problems. The quicker MS kills off the PC as a viable games platform the better. People have become too used to the low quality crap now. For anything to change, patches are just accepted as normal. It is inevitable just as previous platforms were replaced the PC as a games platform is no longer the first choice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The PC is not a static platform. It's a set of technologies, related to varying extent to one another, and constantly changing. Because PCs will necessarily remain extremely common for reasons other than gaming, they will be used for gaming. Simply because they're there, and therefore a market exists. It's inevitable. The PC is defined by the quality of its attempting to perform as many jobs as possible as fully as possible on a single set of technologies. Gaming happens to be one of them. And as long as its other purposes remain, and are not replaced, there's no reason for gaming to disappear. Especially because its other uses have the tendency to push technology forward even for their own sake. And "replacing" for their other purposes, a mess of different technologies which may or may not depend on each other to lesser or greater extents depending on user needs and preferences is not possible. How is it that a platform of the future will simultaneously replace, say, PCs which function as fileservers running NetBSD, PCs which function as routers running Linux, PCs which function as your grandmother's $300 web-surfing-and-nothing-else box, PCs which populate school computer labs, PCs which function as web kiosks on custom Linux builds, and PCs which function as high-end gaming terminals? Even if all games disappeared from planet earth, a huge necessity for PCs would persist specifically because they represent a vast range of technologies which serve very different purposes under very different circumstances. You can't replace them all. What defines PC, anyway? X86? The relevance of the original X86 standard as the basis for modern "PC" processors is increasingly minimal. And BSD and Linux "PCs" operate on non-X86 processors anyway. It can't be that. And will Windows be the OS of tomorrow? Who knows? Mac is increasingly stylish. Linux's marketshare is continually increasing too. One can never underestimate the possibility for sudden and radical change in the world of computer technology. But even if MS disappeared miraculously from planet earth, a horde of other companies would be only too happy to take their place, and snatch up the huge demand for a popular PC standard (which is really all MS provides - benevolent tyranny over the industry - it's arguable that there being no tyrant ruler for the industry would make it even stronger). The notion of another "platform" replacing the "PC" is nonsensical, because the PC itself is not a singular platform: it is a vast array of semi-inter-connected computing technologies which persistently adapt and develop in response to the various and often quite disimilar needs of various industrial and personal user environments alike. And it's not the property of any one vendor. It's the property of hundreds, and the work of thousands of independent developers. And as long as PCs (or Macs - the difference is trivial at this point) populate the earth, they will continue to be a viable gaming platform, by virtue of their very existence. There's no way to go back to 1975 and the days of CP/M at this point. As soon as you hit the mid-seventies, games on popular computing platforms are here to stay. There's no way to destroy the technology so horrifically as to prevent the operation of games on them. And games demonstrate a tendency to spread, as far as I can tell, rather than to remove themselves from viable platforms, where they exist. In a world where games move in to fill tiny cell-phone screens and black-on-green PalmPilot screens at the slightest opportunity, PC games are here for good. Their relative popularity as a gaming platform may vary over time, but their presence as a gaming platform is quite inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porncoaster Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 This thread reminds of the nintendo vs sega wars of the early 90's - when i say wars i mean arguments in the playground. regarding games i would take teh pc versions if there is a choice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the snes kicked arse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haitoku Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Lets see Xbox version played out of the box with no real problems. The quicker MS kills off the PC as a viable games platform the better. People have become too used to the low quality crap now. For anything to change, patches are just accepted as normal. It is inevitable just as previous platforms were replaced the PC as a games platform is no longer the first choice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The PC is not a static platform. It's a set of technologies, related to varying extent to one another, and constantly changing. Because PCs will necessarily remain extremely common for reasons other than gaming, they will be used for gaming. Simply because they're there, and therefore a market exists. It's inevitable. The PC is defined by the quality of its attempting to perform as many jobs as possible as fully as possible on a single set of technologies. Gaming happens to be one of them. And as long as its other purposes remain, and are not replaced, there's no reason for gaming to disappear. Especially because its other uses have the tendency to push technology forward even for their own sake. And "replacing" for their other purposes, a mess of different technologies which may or may not depend on each other to lesser or greater extents depending on user needs and preferences is not possible. How is it that a platform of the future will simultaneously replace, say, PCs which function as fileservers running NetBSD, PCs which function as routers running Linux, PCs which function as your grandmother's $300 web-surfing-and-nothing-else box, PCs which populate school computer labs, PCs which function as web kiosks on custom Linux builds, and PCs which function as high-end gaming terminals? Even if all games disappeared from planet earth, a huge necessity for PCs would persist specifically because they represent a vast range of technologies which serve very different purposes under very different circumstances. You can't replace them all. What defines PC, anyway? X86? The relevance of the original X86 standard as the basis for modern "PC" processors is increasingly minimal. And BSD and Linux "PCs" operate on non-X86 processors anyway. It can't be that. And will Windows be the OS of tomorrow? Who knows? Mac is increasingly stylish. Linux's marketshare is continually increasing too. One can never underestimate the possibility for sudden and radical change in the world of computer technology. But even if MS disappeared miraculously from planet earth, a horde of other companies would be only too happy to take their place, and snatch up the huge demand for a popular PC standard (which is really all MS provides - benevolent tyranny over the industry - it's arguable that there being no tyrant ruler for the industry would make it even stronger). The notion of another "platform" replacing the "PC" is nonsensical, because the PC itself is not a singular platform: it is a vast array of semi-inter-connected computing technologies which persistently adapt and develop in response to the various and often quite disimilar needs of various industrial and personal user environments alike. And it's not the property of any one vendor. It's the property of hundreds, and the work of thousands of independent developers. And as long as PCs (or Macs - the difference is trivial at this point) populate the earth, they will continue to be a viable gaming platform, by virtue of their very existence. There's no way to go back to 1975 and the days of CP/M at this point. As soon as you hit the mid-seventies, games on popular computing platforms are here to stay. There's no way to destroy the technology so horrifically as to prevent the operation of games on them. And games demonstrate a tendency to spread, as far as I can tell, rather than to remove themselves from viable platforms, where they exist. In a world where games move in to fill tiny cell-phone screens and black-on-green PalmPilot screens at the slightest opportunity, PC games are here for good. Their relative popularity as a gaming platform may vary over time, but their presence as a gaming platform is quite inevitable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well said. It's pretty ignorant to say PCs will soon be obsolete gaming wise. I mean, all your console technology is based on it... The xbox2 is using a ati x800xl... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaramirK Posted March 27, 2005 Author Share Posted March 27, 2005 This thread reminds of the nintendo vs sega wars of the early 90's - when i say wars i mean arguments in the playground. regarding games i would take teh pc versions if there is a choice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I certainly wasn't looking for an arguement, merely subjective practical criticism from people who owned BOTH platforms. Their's was really the only opinion I wanted. Thanks for everyones posts, very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cewekeds Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Can I get a PC that will play KOTOR 2 and most of the new games for $200 and won't have to upgrade for 2 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Can that same console run desktop applications such as Adobe Acrobat or even MS Word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cewekeds Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 I can get console and crappy PC for $600. So can I get a pc for $600 that can play the New games and not be upgraded every 2 years to play the new games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaramirK Posted March 27, 2005 Author Share Posted March 27, 2005 Once again. This is a thread asking for people who own KOTOR 2 on PC AND Xbox to give their opinion which platform KOTOR 2 runs best on in its current form. Everything else, Everything else, is redundant on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cewekeds Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 But thats the problem if you have a crappy pc then Kotor 2 not that great and much better on a xbox. If you have great PC then the PC version is the way to go just for the patch and its easier to mod then the xbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Bottomline, PC wins due to patching. That is if that patch ever comes out. Grr... Argh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 The PC is not a static platform. It's a set of technologies, related to varying extent to one another, and constantly changing. Because PCs will necessarily remain extremely common for reasons other than gaming, they will be used for gaming. Simply because they're there, and therefore a market exists. It's inevitable. The PC is defined by the quality of its attempting to perform as many jobs as possible as fully as possible on a single set of technologies. Gaming happens to be one of them. And as long as its other purposes remain, and are not replaced, there's no reason for gaming to disappear. Especially because its other uses have the tendency to push technology forward even for their own sake. And "replacing" for their other purposes, a mess of different technologies which may or may not depend on each other to lesser or greater extents depending on user needs and preferences is not possible. How is it that a platform of the future will simultaneously replace, say, PCs which function as fileservers running NetBSD, PCs which function as routers running Linux, PCs which function as your grandmother's $300 web-surfing-and-nothing-else box, PCs which populate school computer labs, PCs which function as web kiosks on custom Linux builds, and PCs which function as high-end gaming terminals? Even if all games disappeared from planet earth, a huge necessity for PCs would persist specifically because they represent a vast range of technologies which serve very different purposes under very different circumstances. You can't replace them all. What defines PC, anyway? X86? The relevance of the original X86 standard as the basis for modern "PC" processors is increasingly minimal. And BSD and Linux "PCs" operate on non-X86 processors anyway. It can't be that. And will Windows be the OS of tomorrow? Who knows? Mac is increasingly stylish. Linux's marketshare is continually increasing too. One can never underestimate the possibility for sudden and radical change in the world of computer technology. But even if MS disappeared miraculously from planet earth, a horde of other companies would be only too happy to take their place, and snatch up the huge demand for a popular PC standard (which is really all MS provides - benevolent tyranny over the industry - it's arguable that there being no tyrant ruler for the industry would make it even stronger). The notion of another "platform" replacing the "PC" is nonsensical, because the PC itself is not a singular platform: it is a vast array of semi-inter-connected computing technologies which persistently adapt and develop in response to the various and often quite disimilar needs of various industrial and personal user environments alike. And it's not the property of any one vendor. It's the property of hundreds, and the work of thousands of independent developers. And as long as PCs (or Macs - the difference is trivial at this point) populate the earth, they will continue to be a viable gaming platform, by virtue of their very existence. There's no way to go back to 1975 and the days of CP/M at this point. As soon as you hit the mid-seventies, games on popular computing platforms are here to stay. There's no way to destroy the technology so horrifically as to prevent the operation of games on them. And games demonstrate a tendency to spread, as far as I can tell, rather than to remove themselves from viable platforms, where they exist. In a world where games move in to fill tiny cell-phone screens and black-on-green PalmPilot screens at the slightest opportunity, PC games are here for good. Their relative popularity as a gaming platform may vary over time, but their presence as a gaming platform is quite inevitable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You sure typed a lot of totally irrelevent stuff there I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Bottomline, PC wins due to patching. That is if that patch ever comes out. Grr... Argh... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you would rather have poor quality games that can be patched rather than high quality games which work 99% of the time ouf the box... I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Yes, because I use my PC more than just games. You can't use a console more than just games. Last I checked MS Word or Photoshop isn't out on the PS2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cewekeds Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 If you wanted you can turn the Xbox into a Linux and get put on a Word Processor. It would run like crap and be slow as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohma Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 ShadowPaladin: "You sure typed a lot of totally irrelevent stuff there " And once again ShadowPaladin demonstrates that they don't understand a single thing about computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 ShadowPaladin: "You sure typed a lot of totally irrelevent stuff there " And once again ShadowPaladin demonstrates that they don't understand a single thing about computers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh I understood it, it just wasnt relevent. Heres a clue for you. It's all about the games. I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porncoaster Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Once again. This is a thread asking for people who own KOTOR 2 on PC AND Xbox to give their opinion which platform KOTOR 2 runs best on in its current form. Everything else, Everything else, is redundant on this thread. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yeah i have both versions and the pc version wins hands down,better graphics and faster load times.....end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Recommended Posts