6 new Mass Effect screenshots

[10k fists]

Wouldn't teh jaggies even more pronounced on a crystal-clear HDTV? Perhaps the increase in resolution makes up for it. I have no clue, I only have an SD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope, running 4X FSAA at 640x480 isn't the same as 4X FSAA at 1280x720 or 1920x1080.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

It looks amature honest opinion.

[StillLife]

Fixed. 

 

For a few hunder dollars, you get an eMachine.  For a few hundred dollars, you can't even get you a video card that will last until the end of the XBOX 360's development cycle.  For a few hundred dollars, you certainly aren't getting a motherboard and CPU to go with the video card you just bought.  For a few hundred dollars, you can get a gaming system with static hardware that will have support for the next 5 years.

 

...

 

Don't fix what isn't broke, especially when your result makes no sense in the context of how I wrote it. You seem a bit desperate to confuse my point, or perhaps you just have a great deal of difficulty with reading comprehension.

 

I thought it was fairly obvious what I was getting at, but here's a breakdown:

 

Barebones PC with a decent processor = $400(don't give me the E-Machine crap, few people settle on those as their primary system)

 

Basic Xbox 360 package = $400

 

Upgrades to make a PC fit for several years of gaming = $400-500

 

There ya go. Yet over time, given free online play for the PC, as well as the cheaper games, it pulls ahead in cost efficiency. Now, if you're someone with absolutely no desire to own a PC for anything, then the Xbox 360 would be a wise choice. Otherwise, there's little point unless it's a personal preference thing.

 

You may have to buy a new video card after four years or so(with a card that goes for $200, not a few hundred), but the games you play on the new one are gonna look a hell of a lot better than that four year old Xbox.

 

Because, on the whole, PC gaming is much more expensive and has a miniscule installed base compared to console gaming.

 

It's not much more expensive with this current generation as I just pointed out to you, stop with that BS. There's more room to spend money if you're a technology whore than on a console, but it's not at all necessary to have a high quality experience.

 

BTW, individually sure the PC has a tiny base compared to all three of the large console manufacturers(which is an unfair comparison), but it's quite substantial when compared to just the Xbox or GameCube individually.

 

You should count your blessings that more people do not become PC gamers, otherwise your prices will rise.

 

PC developers do not have to pay anyone to release their games, like developers working for consoles do. There are multiple reasons why PC games are cheaper aside from just a smaller market, but still as a consumer I don't really give a damn about why they are, when the fact is they are cheaper.

 

Or, you could buy a cheap computer to do the menial stuff, and a console, and STILL save money over any halfway decent gaming computer.  And it will likely last longer to boot!

 

The facts say otherwise. You should try referring to them sometime before making blanket statements.

 

If you shell out good money for a card, then you might as well buy a console.  Because that Radeon X1900 XTX costs $600 as well.  Given that the Radeon 9800 Pro came out 3 years ago, you paid a premium for it...likely the same cost as a console period.

 

That's a top of the line card for people with too much money to blow. You're confusing necessity with luxury and trying to make them out to be the same. I paid $190 for my 9800 Pro three years ago man, and cards have only been getting more affordable over time, while consoles are getting more expensive.

 

You are insisting that people buy $600 graphics cards, which, by your own standard you didn't even keep for the duration of the console (since PS2s are still around and can still be bought).  In order to last as long as that console, you had to buy a whole new $600 video card 3 years ago.  Given your penchant of buying video cards right when they come out, you have spent $1000+ dollars on video cards alone, let alone motherboards with the appropriate AGP/PCI-E support that are required, in addition to new processors, RAM upgrades, etc.  Meanwhile, someone back in 2000 plopped down $400 for a PS2, and could still be using it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL! Now you're just slinging totally misleading hyperbole. $190 is a hell of a lot less than $600 bud. Someone could still be using a PC they paid $400 for games too btw, as well as for a multitude of other things. The one's that have been released don't magically vanish.

 

Look, I'm glad you love consoles, I do too, that's why I always own at least one from each generation. I even defend them all the time from PC users who claim they suck. What I don't buy is that bull**** that developers should stop making games for PCs, or that PCs for gaming are still far more pricey than consoles. Those kinds of statements are ridiculous and false when you really look at the abundance of evidence to the contrary. I'd never argue with someone who had a personal preference for consoles over PCs, but price is becoming a non-issue in the comparison between them. Feel free to keep pretending if it makes you feel better about your purchases though. Just know reality isn't on your side.

Edited May 11, 2006 by StillLife

[LostStraw]

Don't fix what isn't broke, especially when your result makes no sense in the context of how I wrote it.  You seem a bit desperate to confuse my point, or perhaps you just have a great deal of difficulty with reading comprehension. 

 

I thought it was fairly obvious what I was getting at, but here's a breakdown:

 

Barebones PC with a decent processor = $400(don't give me the E-Machine crap, few people settle on those as their primary system)

 

Basic Xbox 360 package = $400

Voo

Upgrades to make a PC fit for several years of gaming = $400-500

 

There ya go.  Yet over time, given free online play for the PC, as well as the cheaper games, it pulls ahead in cost efficiency.  Now, if you're someone with absolutely no desire to own a PC for anything, then the Xbox 360 would be a wise choice.  Otherwise, there's little point unless it's a personal preference thing.

 

You may have to buy a new video card after four years or so(with a card that goes for $200, not a few hundred), but the games you play on the new one are gonna look a hell of a lot better than that four year old Xbox.

 

Eh, I put a gaming rig together around 3 years ago for 1300 USD. Granted it can still play todays games, but only at rather low settings and I'm afraid that the next gen games will just mutilate it. Now if I want to upgrade to play current games at medium to high quality at decent frame rates, it's going to cost me a lot more than just 200 USD for a new video card.. a lot more.

 

I guess if you're not into graphically intense games then your point stands, but if you are -- 200 USD wont do it.

 

 

 

That's a top of the line card for people with too much money to blow.  You're confusing necessity with luxury and trying to make them out to be the same.  I paid $190 for my 9800 Pro three years ago man, and cards have only been getting more affordable over time, while consoles are getting more expensive.

 

Sorry, but I have to say WTF to this. Are you saying the Xbox is more expensive now then when it was released, or are you saying that the top of the line TNT2 card was more expensive when it was released then the top of the line Geforce card today? Either way -- you're blowing chunks.

 

As for the other stuff, I wont argue. We obviously have different perceptions of what a decent gaming rig should look like. As for me, I've only owned one console and I've hardly touched it because of my PC. But after considering all the price points for myself, I've come to the conclusion that for the next generation, it would be cheaper for me to get a console then it would be for me to upgrade my old rig. Things like game rentals and purchasing used games can really reduce the price over time.

[StillLife]

Eh, I put a gaming rig together around 3 years ago for 1300 USD.  Granted it can still play todays games, but only at rather low settings and I'm afraid that the next gen games will just mutilate it.  Now if I want to upgrade to play current games at medium to high quality at decent frame rates, it's going to cost me a lot more than just 200 USD for a new video card.. a lot more.

 

  I guess if you're not into graphically intense games then your point stands, but if you are -- 200 USD wont do it.

 

At what resolution?

 

That's a top of the line card for people with too much money to blow.  You're confusing necessity with luxury and trying to make them out to be the same.  I paid $190 for my 9800 Pro three years ago man, and cards have only been getting more affordable over time, while consoles are getting more expensive.

 

  Sorry, but I have to say WTF to this.  Are you saying the Xbox is more expensive now then when it was released, or are you saying that the top of the line TNT2 card was more expensive when it was released then the top of the line Geforce card today?  Either way -- you're blowing chunks.

 

Well, the feeling is mutual. WTF? Here's what I was responding to:

 

Because that Radeon X1900 XTX costs $600 as well.

 

ATI makes the Radeon series. I still don't even know what you're confused about though and it doesn't seem like do you either. Nice of you to take preemptive measures and just assure me I'm "blowing chunks"(which means vomitting btw) though bud! :D

 

As for the other stuff, I wont argue.  We obviously have different perceptions of what a decent gaming rig should look like.  As for me, I've only owned one console and I've hardly touched it because of my PC.  But after considering all the price points for myself, I've come to the conclusion that for the next generation, it would be cheaper for me to get a console then it would be for me to upgrade my old rig.  Things like game rentals and purchasing used games can really reduce the price over time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey, same thing I thought last round. I bought an Xbox assuming it would be a cheaper but similar enough alternative to gaming on a PC. All things considered, it wasn't. Good luck though.

[LostStraw]

At what resolution?

Running above 800x600 in the games I like to play usually gets quite a bit of chop on the medium detail settings. Running at the low detail settings (Quake 4) I can push it up to 1024x768, but I still get some FPS drops, not unplayable but annoying none the less.

 

That's a top of the line card for people with too much money to blow.  You're confusing necessity with luxury and trying to make them out to be the same.  I paid $190 for my 9800 Pro three years ago man, and cards have only been getting more affordable over time, while consoles are getting more expensive.

I'll try making myself more clear, my writing comprehension suffers sometimes. You stated in your quote that video cards are getting cheaper while consoles are getting more expensive.

 

However, video cards get cheaper over time as well as consoles. See the drop in price of the Xbox as well as the drop in price of the Radeon 9800. If you meant that the new generation of consoles is more expensive then the last.. that's true, but the same applies to videocards. Over generations they both get more expensive.

 

 

ATI makes the Radeon series.  I still don't even know what you're confused about though and it doesn't seem like do you either.  Nice of you to take preemptive measures and just assure me I'm "blowing chunks"(which means vomitting btw) though bud!  :D

I'm well aware of both those things. And I don't think I'm confused (although I may be). I was using Nvidia in my example because I still have fond memories of my TNT 2, and I know it wasn't some 600 USD.

 

 

Hey, same thing I thought last round.  I bought an Xbox assuming it would be a cheaper but similar enough alternative to gaming on a PC.  All things considered, it wasn't.  Good luck though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks.

Edited May 11, 2006 by LostStraw

[alanschu]

Barebones PC with a decent processor = $400(don't give me the E-Machine crap, few people settle on those as their primary system)

 

You'd be surprised.

 

 

In any case, build me a computer right now, preferably with links to the prices, that will last anywhere near 3-4 years that only costs $400.

 

You said barebones PC with a decent processor. I'm assuming you're not going used (since you can get used consoles for insanely cheap too). So build me a computer that is a good gaming machine for $400.

[Judge Hades]

Including or not including the moniter?

[Llyranor]

That depends. Are you including the TV?

[Judge Hades]

Depends, is it flat panel or HDTV?

[Spider]

In any case, build me a computer right now, preferably with links to the prices, that will last anywhere near 3-4 years that only costs $400.

 

You said barebones PC with a decent processor.  I'm assuming you're not going used (since you can get used consoles for insanely cheap too).  So build me a computer that is a good gaming machine for $400.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He did say it needed to be upgraded with stuff for $4-500 to be fit for several years of gaming though.

[alanschu]

He did say it needed to be upgraded with stuff for $4-500 to be fit for several years of gaming though.

 

Fair enough.

 

I'm still interested in what sort of capable gaming machine he can get for $400, unless the "upgrades" is one of those $400 video cards that are out now.

 

To get a video card that will continue to play games for the 3-4 years (which is what he said initially), you'd have to plop down $400 on a video card alone right now.

[Spider]

My guess is that a graphic card is indeed one of the upgrades. 1 GB of RAM probably covers the remaining $100.

[Volourn]

To have fun with the topic, Gamespot will have a 1 hours presenattion overview of ME tomorrow. This should include in game video. Check BIO pages for links.

 

Now, back, to the apparantly more interesting topic.

[StillLife]

He did say it needed to be upgraded with stuff for $4-500 to be fit for several years of gaming though.

 

Fair enough.

 

I'm still interested in what sort of capable gaming machine he can get for $400, unless the "upgrades" is one of those $400 video cards that are out now.

 

To get a video card that will continue to play games for the 3-4 years (which is what he said initially), you'd have to plop down $400 on a video card alone right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Spider pointed it out to you, but I wasn't claiming you could buy a PC suited for gaming for $400. That would be kinda stupid. But add on $400-500 or so to that on top of what you'd pay for a standard PC, and you have a machine ready for gaming that will be good for at least several years.

 

You do not need a top of the line video card for it to last 3-4 years, those are for people who want all the bells and whistles for that duration. You could get a Radeon Pro X1600 with 512 MB from friggin Best Buy(which probably isn't the cheapest route) for $250, or an X1300 256 for $80. With all the Vista stuff coming up, it's a little tricky to predict whether a X1300 would last you 3-4 years, but I'd bet a X1600 Pro with 512MB would and still be able to keep the settings around medium or higher in most games.

 

Keep in mind what I said about the extra price over a three year period you'd have with a basic Xbox 360 package, and you'll see it's really not any cheaper then making a PC fit for gaming.

[Hurlshort]

This isn't really an argument. Consoles will always be cheaper in terms of gaming bang. But PC's are so much more. It's silly to debate (even though we've had the same debate ad nauseum here.)

[alanschu]

Spider pointed it out to you, but I wasn't claiming you could buy a PC suited for gaming for $400.  That would be kinda stupid.  But add on $400-500 or so to that on top of what you'd pay for a standard PC, and you have a machine ready for gaming that will be good for at least several years.

 

Build this computer for me please. Seriously...as I'm considering buying a new computer at the moment. I'll give you $900 to work with, since that's the $400 plus the top end of the $400-500 range. Preferably go to some place on line where it is easy to validate your claims.

 

You do not need a top of the line video card for it to last 3-4 years, those are for people who want all the bells and whistles for that duration.  You could get a Radeon Pro X1600 with 512 MB from friggin Best Buy(which probably isn't the cheapest route) for $250, or an X1300 256 for $80.  With all the Vista stuff coming up, it's a little tricky to predict whether a X1300 would last you 3-4 years, but I'd bet a X1600 Pro with 512MB would and still be able to keep the settings around medium or higher in most games.

 

Sound a little less certain of yourself here though. As for the Radeon X1600 being valid for several years, I disagree. Just like the Radeon 9600 doesn't keep you going now. The Radeon X1600 with 256 MB of memory plays FEAR at 1024x768 with no AA and no AF at 26 FPS. It plays Call of Duty 2 at 31 FPS. Age of Empires 3 at 21 FPS. Quake 4 at 54 FPS, Serious Sam 2 at 36 FPS, Black & White 2 at 22 FPS.Link

 

(Note: These tests seem to have max details set for other things, so you could likely squeeze out a bit more life out of them. Though I'm not sure what kind of an optimal experience FEAR is at 640x480. I prefer not to play at that resolution which is why I have not played that game with my current graphics card, and am waiting until I get a new computer).

 

The X1300 card runs today's games even worse. Buying the X1300 card for gaming is a bad idea.

 

Doing a quick look around the internet, it is routinely outperformed by the Radeon X800, an AGP card (not that AGP is bad, but its days are numbered and you're not going to be getting new AGP cards any time soon).

 

A quick look to other sites that I have usually relied on for video card reviews shows similar results:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1896798,00.asp

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/rv5xx/index.php?p=14

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2552&p=9

 

 

The funny thing is, you didn't keep your top of the line GeForce2 for longer than 3 years. You then bought a Radeon 9800 Pro when it was released. The only ATI card that was better than it at the time was the Radeon 9800 XT. And given that I have a Radeon 9800 Pro, I'm seeing the crunch that games like Oblivion are having on the card. And it's only a 3 year old card, which is barely half the lifespan of a console. FEAR requires me to play on lower detail settings than I prefer (and I'm not all that demanding on my video card settings). I have to play Oblivion at 640x480 to consistently get good frame rates without turning off the rest of the detail settings. This is also on a system with 1 GB of dual-channel RAM on a Socket 939 Athlon64 3500+ processor.

Edited May 12, 2006 by alanschu

[StillLife]

Build this computer for me please.  Seriously...as I'm considering buying a new computer at the moment.  I'll give you $900 to work with, since that's the $400 plus the top end of the $400-500 range.  Preferably go to some place on line where it is easy to validate your claims.

 

Too much of a hassle to scour around the Internet for custom parts or good deals from manufacturers when I'm not in the market for a new comp, sorry. Look around, especially during the holidays.

 

Sound a little less certain of yourself here though.  As for the Radeon X1600 being valid for several years, I disagree.  Just like the Radeon 9600 doesn't keep you going now.  The Radeon X1600 with 256 MB of memory plays FEAR at 1024x768 with no AA and no AF at 26 FPS.  It plays Call of Duty 2 at 31 FPS.  Age of Empires 3 at 21 FPS.  Quake 4 at 54 FPS, Serious Sam 2 at 36 FPS, Black & White 2 at 22 FPS.Link

 

1) Keep in mind the X1600 Pro I mentioned is a 512MB PCI Express - not AGP, and Best Buy is usually rip-off in terms of computer hardware.

 

2) Those numbers are suspect, considering when you add on 2xAA and AS X4 with max quality settings for FEAR in that menu, the X1600 Pro AGP 256 shows 28 FPS. http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.htm...l2=303&chart=94

 

Unfortunately I've had trouble finding a benchmark for the specific card I pointed out, but it could be assumed there'd be a notable performance improvement with the PCI-E 512MB over the AGP 256. FEAR is pretty taxing on a system though, and if you can run it at max quality with AA and AS, you'll probably be able to run any game to come for the next three years with at least good-medium quality.

 

An even better deal might be to go with an X1800 PCI-E 256MB(retail). Spotted one at NewEgg for $239. Actually I came across one for $128(also retail) earlier, but it disappeared. Again, I'm not in the market for a new card and too disinterested to do much research as a result, so there could very well be a much better investment than the one's I'm mentioning.

 

There's also the consideration of DirectX 10/Vista coming up. I'm not sure how any of the current crop of cards will work with them, so it may be a poor time to be in the market for a video card that will have good performance for several years at all right now.

 

(Note:  These tests seem to have max details set for other things, so you could likely squeeze out a bit more life out of them.  Though I'm not sure what kind of an optimal experience FEAR is at 640x480.  I prefer not to play at that resolution which is why I have not played that game with my current graphics card, and am waiting until I get a new computer).

 

I ran FEAR at fairly good quality settings in 1024X768 with my 9800 Pro 128 at a nice framerate(30ish). Can't remember if I had any AA. That's another reason those benchmarks seem a little questionable to me though.

 

The X1300 card runs today's games even worse.  Buying the X1300 card for gaming is a bad idea.

 

You're right. The X1300--after looking around a bit--seems to be a horrible card for it's price in general. I've been a bit out of the loop so I wasn't aware of that. My bad.

 

The funny thing is, you didn't keep your top of the line GeForce2 for longer than 3 years.  You then bought a Radeon 9800 Pro when it was released.  The only ATI card that was better than it at the time was the Radeon 9800 XT.  And given that I have a Radeon 9800 Pro, I'm seeing the crunch that games like Oblivion are having on the card.  And it's only a 3 year old card, which is barely half the lifespan of a console.  FEAR requires me to play on lower detail settings than I prefer (and I'm not all that demanding on my video card settings).  I have to play Oblivion at 640x480 to consistently get good frame rates without turning off the rest of the detail settings.  This is also on a system with 1 GB of dual-channel RAM on a Socket 939 Athlon64 3500+ processor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bear in mind my Geforce 2 was a PCI. I didn't have an AGP slot on my old computer. That computer's(it was five years old and cheap when I bought it) main downfall was its processor, which is what prompted me to upgrade to an entirely new system.

 

Oblivion gives my 9800 Pro quite an ass kicking too, though I still ran it at 1024x768 with mediumish details; distant land on, bloom, etc, albeit with the framerate dipping into the low 20's at points. WTF are you doing to have to play it in 640x480? I'm using a P4 2.8 Ghz, 1GB 3200 RAM. Oblivion is probably the biggest graphics hog on the market right now though, and isn't likely to be matched for some time to come. Not exactly a sign that 9800 Pro's don't still have some life in them.

 

There were only about 4 years between the release of the Xbox and the Xbox 360. Three years is hardly half the lifespan. The PS2? Sure, but it's looked quite bad for the majority of its lifetime too and I doubt the PS3 will run nearly as long now that they're competing with MS. Unlike a single console, PC games are constantly improving visually, have better load times than console games, and because of the large advantage in certain areas like excessive RAM, are capable of doing things consoles can't. You may have to upgrade a PC slightly more frequently, but it also comes with large performance advantages over having a static console which must be taken into consideration when trying to make a cost comparison.

 

Ok, this thread has gotten beyond tedious and time consuming into the realm of asinine, so I'm bowing out. Buy a 360, hate on computers for gaming, I don't really care. But claiming that going with a 360 is a much cheaper alternative to buying a PC for gaming just isn't true when you really examine all the angles. I still think it's likely just as, or even be more expensive in the long run if you already have any interest in using a PC and like multiplayer gaming at all.

Edited May 12, 2006 by StillLife

[alanschu]

Too much of a hassle to scour around the Internet for custom parts or good deals from manufacturers when I'm not in the market for a new comp, sorry. Look around, especially during the holidays.

 

Convenient.

 

If it's so easy to do, it shouldn't be a hassle at all. If you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is and support your claims, then don't bother making them.

 

Event then this ignores the fact that the vast majority of people don't know squat about this sort of thing anyways, and are completely incapable of building their own computer.

Edited May 12, 2006 by alanschu

[StillLife]

Too much of a hassle to scour around the Internet for custom parts or good deals from manufacturers when I'm not in the market for a new comp, sorry. Look around, especially during the holidays.

 

Convenient.

 

If it's so easy to do, it shouldn't be a hassle at all. If you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is and support your claims, then don't bother making them.

 

Oh please, don't be a hypocrite. Throughout most of this thread you've been slinging baseless claims around. Bargain hunting is rarely easy and often time consuming - as you undoubtedly know, which is why you're using it as an excuse to dismiss everything I've said. I'm not gonna waste my time for you anymore than I have by trying to respond to your comments pal.

 

Event then this ignores the fact that the vast majority of people don't know squat about this sort of thing anyways, and are completely incapable of building their own computer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never said it's easier - that wasn't part of this discussion. What are you trying to prove anyway with a comment like that, smart guy? That people shouldn't use computers for gaming or that developers shouldn't support the platform? Or are you just a console fanboy looking to rag on something you don't approve of? Don't be an idiot. You don't get to decide what other people prefer.

[10k fists]

I'm not knocking consoles in general, just the Xbox.  Nintendo and Sony have things with their system that you won't get with a PC.  Xbox 360 is basically just PC Jr. without the plethora of features.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>