DaveW on 16/2/2007 at 14:51
Quote Posted by Matthew
I've also noted that the a large number of PC games released today are rubbish, whereas something like Animal Crossing DS is a great use of the format for which it was released. Buy hey, blanket statements ftw, right!
I've found moreso that a large number of games are rubbish, just because innovation is being stamped out by large giants like EA that are just re-releasing the same rubbish over and over. I mean, how many Sims games are they going to release?
Fett- Half Life 2 was rubbish anyway :D
Agent Monkeysee on 16/2/2007 at 17:13
Quote Posted by fett
It is subjective, but I don't see how you guys can make the transition from PC to console because I get pretty frustrated even with games that are ported over.
Wouldn't you get
more frustrated with ports than with games native to the platform? I agree that PC-to-console ports (or vice-versa) end up being the worst of both worlds most of the time but it's not particular fair to judge an entire platform by the content that is, by definition, shoe-horned into it.
jay pettitt on 16/2/2007 at 18:48
Quote Posted by DaveW
So far you've offered little proof to support that OpenGL is better than DirectX. It's easier to play the "Your arguments are crap" card and not actually say why, I guess. Yes, OpenGL is more flexible - that is an advantage for it. However, it is no where near as good as DirectX in terms of graphical features and optimisation. Also, the Wii barely has (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#Technical_specifications) any graphical muscle whatsoever anyway, so the lack of Direct X 10 isn't really going to hinder it. So basically it's whether you want portability or useability. Which is
better for games? Useability. Portability only covers what is better for the
company making them. Also, saying that the Xbox and Playstation are 'great gaming platforms' is very subjective in itself - I personally think consoles are rubbish. I never said lack of DirectX 10 hinders them - I just said that DirectX 10 is better than OpenGl.
Fucking stop you moron. I am not arguing that OpenGL is better than DirectX because the distinction is subjective; I'm not so fucking moronic as to try and argue one above the other. Both are good, both help developers develop stuff. Your arguments are crap because everything you've said so far has been demonstrably false: Macs can be upgraded, hardware and software updates and DirectX are not requirements for a successful gaming platform; yet you keep arguing the point. Stop it. Stop stop stop stop stop. Stop.
DaveW on 16/2/2007 at 19:12
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Your arguments are crap because everything you've said so far has been demonstrably false: Macs can be upgraded,
hardware and software updates and DirectX are not requirements for a successful gaming platform; yet you keep arguing the point. Stop it. Stop stop stop stop stop. Stop.
And yet I've never disputed that - so basically you're bitching at me for making a point I didn't even make? Also you have yet to "demonstrate" how that's false at all actually - all you've been saying is "Stop you moron" etc., rather than try to offer any kind of real argument. Anyway, I'm out - all you've proved is that you can offer a point and then back it up with
fuck all and just burst into a fit of swearing and calling the other person a moron for not agreeing with you. Well done - you win at the internet.
P.S What is an Xbox360 over an Xbox if not a hardware upgrade?
Ziemanskye on 16/2/2007 at 22:22
A completely seperate unit.
Much like replacing your Mac to get more power in it: but that's the point - Xbox > Xbox360 is a replacement not an upgrade.
(except that, as proved above, the Mac could, maybe have been upgraded)
DaveW on 17/2/2007 at 00:11
Quote Posted by Ziemanskye
A completely seperate unit.
Much like replacing your Mac to get more power in it: but that's the point - Xbox > Xbox360 is a
replacement not an
upgrade.
(except that, as proved above, the Mac could, maybe have been upgraded)
Hmm, yes actually - I wasn't really thinking through how he meant that. I was using the term loosely, much like one would say "I'm upgrading to a new PC". All that's changed is the components inside it.
Ziemanskye on 17/2/2007 at 11:23
In terms of the 360 being an "upgrade" in the sense of being bigger versions of the same things in a new box, I think you're more or less right.
I don't think it suffers the PS family trait of bizarre alien new processors and stuff at each model :D
Could be wrong though - not much of a gubbins fan.
Vigil on 17/2/2007 at 13:29
The Xbox360 has completely different processor and renderer architecture, and is only backwards-compatible with (a subset of) Xbox games by virtue of per-game emulation; emulation that, from what I gather, basically amounts to writing patches for each game porting it to the new architecture. Likewise, old controllers for the Xbox are not compatible with the Xbox360.
So, yes, you are wrong. Quite completely.
DaveW on 17/2/2007 at 18:34
Quote Posted by Vigil
The Xbox360 has completely different processor and renderer architecture, and is only backwards-compatible with (a subset of) Xbox games by virtue of per-game emulation; emulation that, from what I gather, basically amounts to writing patches for each game porting it to the new architecture. Likewise, old controllers for the Xbox are not compatible with the Xbox360.
So, yes, you are wrong. Quite completely.
Actually - that's still an upgrade. "Completely different processor" - well, just a new processor really. Upgrading a PC from a Intel Celeron to a 64bit Core Duo 2 would be considered a "Completely different processor" by your definition. Clearly a new operating system would require backwards compatability and require emulation, like DOSBox for the PC required to run some older games.
