PC or not

[Istorian]

I'll have to vote yes. There's no way I can get an Xbox 360 (my finances are below zero), and there's no way I won't play the game

[Revan 411]

I hate LucasArts. Reason why is cause, The Force Unleashed is coming out on every single console except PC. Its PC that brought them the money they have earned. Its PC that the fans like. And yet, they won't make a PC port of the game...

 

I voted yes. The reason why, it would be nice to see some mods and improved graphics and game play that only PC can hardly

[Da_Man_2423]

I hate LucasArts.

 

Ok...doesn't change much.

 

Reason why is cause, The Force Unleashed is coming out on every single console except PC.

 

True, and they gave a reason for that decision.

 

 

Its PC that brought them the money they have earned.

 

Hardly. Plenty of their cash has been earned from the console market.

 

Its PC that the fans like.

 

Evidently LA is making plenty of cash already and doesn't need PC sales. Or perhaps their reason for not releasing a PC version was legit?

 

And yet, they won't make a PC port of the game...

 

Yep, and they gave reasons for it. Were those reasons not good enough?

 

I voted yes. The reason why, it would be nice to see some mods and improved graphics and game play that only PC can hardly

 

Just because it comes to the PC doesn't mean there will be mod support.

 

But if Lucasarts doesn't want my money thats fine with me.

 

Don't worry, they won't miss your hard earned cash at all.

 

Don't want another lackluster console port. So no thanks.

 

Me neither, lucky I own a console.

 

Plus, to me it isn't looking all that great anyway...

 

Well, so far, the reviews haven't been spectacular.

[Astor]

Its PC that brought them the money they have earned.[/Quote]

 

No, it's Star Wars that's got them the money they earned. The platform is irrelevant. Put those two magic words in front of a game and you're onto a winner.

 

Or perhaps their reason for not releasing a PC version was legit?[/Quote]

 

I'm inclined to believe it. Lucasarts would gain nothing by lying to its consumer base, save some angry e-mails and condemnation.

 

Were those reasons not good enough?[/Quote]

 

Evidently, for some people, they aren't.

 

Well, so far, the reviews haven't been spectacular.

 

I haven't seen any yet, so I can't comment, but I shall be searching for some right away!

[PoiuyWired]

Well, to be fair, chances are that a pc gamer would have other consoles too. If a console version is released first, then the gamer migt buy it, and then buy the pc version none-the-less if its released later. Probably not so if the pc version is released first/at around the same time.

 

Its not so much that the pc cannot handle the graphics. If they really want it, a ps2/psp can, then certainly can a pc, even if it means a weakened version. Plus, I do think that a nice gaming pc can handle dmm and euphoria, esp one half a year(or a year) later.

[ParaCore]

Yes - I would love a PC version of this game, thats the ONLY version I will buy. I was looking forward to this game, it never occurred to me that it would not be on the PC, I was fairly mad when I read that its not (Yet it will be on the stupid wii and PS2...)

 

This is complete bull that they did not stick this game on the PC. From what I can tell, this is there reason for it:

 

VideoGamer.com: We're a multiplatform website and some of our PC-owning readers have complained about this.

 

CS: And that's something that every time I read that, we do hear that complaint, it hurts. Our goal was we wanted to get this game to as many people as possible. I definitely wish it had been possible. However the PC being the gaming platform that it is, someone with a $4,000 high-end system would definitely be able to play the Euphoria, the DMM and really technical elements of the game. But someone with a low-end PC would have a watered down experience, they would have to turn all the settings down and it wouldn't be the same game. On the other hand if we made that game for as many people as possible, because we are trying to make mass market games, something that everybody can enjoy, well then it's not taking advantage of what those $4,000 systems can do. So one way or the other depending on how you build that lead PC SKU, it's not going to be for the same amount of people, it's going to be not as good or only for a select few people.

 

What...? Thats complete rubbish. They are scaling it down for the PS2 and Wii, but not the PC? that completely invalidates that entire reason, IMO.

 

They have a reason, but this one is complete BS. They obviously don't want my money - im not going to go fork out $300+ for a stupid console, when I have a perfectly fine gaming computer right here that can easily handle this game.

 

That said we're definitely not out of the PC market. It's just with our choice for this game, with the known quantity for the consoles, and every console is the same with the same processing power, it made sense for us to develop for those consoles.

 

What..?

 

PS2 does not have the same processing power of the PS3, or Xbox360, same for the wii. Another BS response.

 

The least they could do is give us a GOOD reason, not this crap.

[LordOfTheFish]

Why not? Most star wars games are good for online play.

[Astor]

Yes - I would love a PC version of this game, thats the ONLY version I will buy.[/Quote]

 

Then you'll likely be in for a long wait.

 

This is complete bull that they did not stick this game on the PC.[/Quote]

 

And why, exactly should they have to make a PC version?

 

They are scaling it down for the PS2 and Wii, but not the PC? that completely invalidates that entire reason, IMO.[/Quote]

 

Those versions are being developed by separate studios (not Lucasarts) specifically to run on those machines.

 

Technologically, they're not the same the game. The only thing the same is the title.

 

And testing it to run on PCs would take a lot of time and money to make sure it could run on a variety of systems. That's the downfall of PCs - they are often mix and match in terms of hardware.

 

They obviously don't want my money - im not going to go fork out $300+ for a stupid console, when I have a perfectly fine gaming computer right here that can easily handle this game.[/Quote]

 

You can think consoles are stupid, and refuse not to buy one, but without knowing any technical requirements, how can you be sure that your PC could run it?

 

What..?

 

PS2 does not have the same processing power of the PS3, or Xbox360, same for the wii. Another BS response.[/Quote]

 

As i've said, it's not BS.

 

The least they could do is give us a GOOD reason, not this crap.

 

Why is it crap? Because it's not what you wanted to hear?

[ParaCore]

Yes - I would love a PC version of this game, thats the ONLY version I will buy.[/Quote]

 

Then you'll likely be in for a long wait.

 

 

Eh, fine with me - unlike some people in this thread waiting dosnt seem to bother me... And really, if they dont make it so be it - I still think its a stupid choice on there part.

 

And why, exactly should they have to make a PC version?

 

Where did I say they *have* to. I said I think its stupid they dont. I am sick of seeing all these games come out for consoles then all PC gets (If anything), is a port that sucks.

 

Those versions are being developed by separate studios (not Lucasarts) specifically to run on those machines.

 

Technologically, they're not the same the game. The only thing the same is the title.

 

And testing it to run on PCs would take a lot of time and money to make sure it could run on a variety of systems. That's the downfall of PCs - they are often mix and match in terms of hardware.

 

First off, my guess would be the PC would be developed by a separate studio as well, like it was with Merc 2. And if not, all the better - maybe it wouldnt be crappy.

 

Second - Yes, thats about the only valid argument I see here, as far as why they don't.

 

You can think consoles are stupid, and refuse not to buy one, but without knowing any technical requirements, how can you be sure that your PC could run it?

 

It dosnt matter what the reqs are. They would not make it to push my system to the limits most likely, because that would most definatly not pay off for them as less people would buy it.

 

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4Ghz, non-OC, need to upgrade it to a quad core some time - but yea, runs fine enough for me)

150GB Raptor (10K RPM)

4GB DDR2 800 Ram

8800GTX

 

If that can't run it, then yea...

 

As i've said, it's not BS.

 

Why is it crap? Because it's not what you wanted to hear?

 

1) Yes, it is.

2) No, its crap because its a stupid response, that doesn't even make much sense. If the studio that made the PC port didnt do completely crap job of porting it(If there was a port to PC), id be willing to bet lots of people would buy the game for PC.

[Aku]

Alright, time to start quoting half of the thread:

 

Maybe then we'll get some nice dismemberment mods to make up for it lacking in the game.

Unfortunately, that kind of mod would be extremely hard (or most likely completely impossible) to make.

Unless the game has had such a function during production that got cut out somewhere along the road, it'd basically be outside the realm of what's possible especially without an SDK (and with no multiplayer options, it's quite obvious a game like this would never get an SDK released to modders).

The reason Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy had it was because they basically built the way models, animations and saber hit collision work in a way that allows it (which is why they tested the feature in Jedi Outcast, but cut it out during production. They actually implemented it in Jedi Academy though.)

 

 

I'm a huge SW fan and own every Star Wars game there is

...Last time I checked, there are a bunch of console exclusive Star Wars games. Do you even have all the Star Wars games there is for PC? Including Rebel Assault 1&2, Yoda Adventures and all of the different X-wing/Tie fighter games? (just picked some oldies straight out of memory. Gotta love Yoda Adventures =D)

(and I dont normally "purchase" my games so that says something about how I feel for SW)

To be honest, I think that says more about your values than it says about your feelings for Star Wars.

Let's not make a big argument about that in this thread though. If anything, please yell at me through Personal Messages instead.

 

 

Its PC that brought them the money they have earned. Its PC that the fans like. And yet, they won't make a PC port of the game...

It has already been said but I'll say it too:

PC isn't behind mostof their sales, the franchise is. Especially those movies. You know, that first trilogy? The one that begins at Episode 4? =)

All of their fans aren't PC players either. It's best not to make such claims when there's really no information to back it up. Logic can only say that there are both Console and PC players in their fanbase.

We'd need to make a massive investigation of all of Lucasart's sales figures for all their games on all platforms to be able to say anything other than that....And I highly doubt anyone, including Lucasarts themselves, would want to go through such a statistical hell (imagine the insane amounts of work and data to gather ^^; )

 

I voted yes. The reason why, it would be nice to see some mods and improved graphics and game play that only PC can hardly

I'm going assume by "hardly", you meant "handle".

If you did, then this sentence contains three things that I would call common misconceptions regarding Console to PC ports ^^;

Usually, a console to PC port would be focused on getting the game running well on a wide range of PCs rather than changing the way the game is coded to add in mod support.

Since there is no realistic need for mod support on consoles, there's no need to adapt the game to allow it. Many multiplayer games do it to allow for more content that'll keep the community attached to the game live longer.

Singleplayer games don't have that luxury as creating new levels is really hard if you're not the actual creators of the game.

 

Furthermore, it's not guaranteed that a PC version of a console game will have improved graphics.

People too often assume that PCs can easily handle the same graphics that consoles can and would have little problem supporting even higher levels of graphics.

The fact that this isn't really true is the reason this game isn't getting a PC port at all.

Games optimized for consoles is a whole different thing compared to games optimized for PCs. I go deeper into that later in this post though ^^;

 

Last is the strangest of them all:

Why would a PC be able to handle better gameplay? Why is there gameplay that only a PC could handle?

"Shooters! Mouse and keyboard!" people say. Yet Halo is one of the most popular shooters out there with over a million people playing Halo 3 online in the first 20 hours after release. Its current sales figures are almost equal to the population of my entire country (Sweden.)

Not forgetting Call of Duty 4, people obviously like console shooters.

They say mouse and keyboard gives superior precision. The mouse may do as such, but the almost always present auto aim functionality solves that pretty well. Just look at the targeting system in GTA IV. That kind of targeting system would actually be harder to pull off on a PC (and I wouldn't be surprised if the upcoming PC version of the game removes it completely)

The keyboard definitely isn't as precise as the sticks on a controller though.

A button on a keyboard is binary in nature, only on and off available. A stick allows precision control of movement.

You could say it's a tie between PC and Console in that regard really ; P

 

This game is definitely not a shooter though.

Unfortunately, that doesn't exactly make life easier for anyone who'd attempt designing the control scheme for a PC version of it.

 

First of all, people would complain about just walking around. On a keyboard, you've only got 8 possible directions (by combining the four movement buttons you'd be given) to walk. That removes a lot of the smoothness and precision you'd get from a thumbstick.

I have no doubt that all of the different actions could be mapped out to buttons that are easily accessed using the common WASD movement layout, but there is one thing in the game that definitely couldn't.

Unfortunately, that is one of the main mechanics of this game.

Force Grip allows smooth and (once you've gotten used to its finer details) intuitive movements in all directions on the PS360 version of the game.

A mouse could do this if you throw in the mouse wheel like Psi-ops did, yes. Unfortunately, that isn't very intuitive in nature (especially since you'd have to lift your mouse all the time to make longer movements with the carried object) and throwing an object diagonally up or down would just be a crazy feat of dexterity (at least looking from the perspective of all but the most seasoned gamers.)

 

This was the part in writing this that I remembered what I was actually replying to. Sorry about that ^^;

 

Basically, PC and Consoles both work well for different kinds of gameplay.

Games like Endwar and Halo Wars show that consoles definitely can adjust to the gameplay of PC-dominant titles, but these are games that were built and designed to pull of that feat.

Simply adapting a game for that purpose is extremely hard, as many design choices in games are made taking the target platform into consideration.

 

 

What...? Thats complete rubbish. They are scaling it down for the PS2 and Wii, but not the PC? that completely invalidates that entire reason, IMO.

As has already been said, the PS2 and Wii versions aren't downscaled, they're completely remade only retaining some of the design choices, the story and the basic concept behind the game (that would be the whole "Unleashed" thing which is the reason this game is being made at all)

im not going to go fork out $300+ for a stupid console, when I have a perfectly fine gaming computer right here that can easily handle this game.

Before I say any further, I'll just clarify that I did read the specs you wrote. I'm just quoting this post because it's earlier in the topic ^^;

 

So, here's the thing. If they were to fully bring over the full PS360 experience to PC...Your computer wouldn't be able to handle it. Not many computers would be able to.

The reason is the exact thing Lucasarts themselves said, which brings us to the next and (thankfully) last thing I was going to quote:

That said we're definitely not out of the PC market. It's just with our choice for this game, with the known quantity for the consoles, and every console is the same with the same processing power, it made sense for us to develop for those consoles.

What..?

 

PS2 does not have the same processing power of the PS3, or Xbox360, same for the wii. Another BS response.

 

The least they could do is give us a GOOD reason, not this crap.

You are completely misunderstanding what the guy said.

He didn't say PS2, PS3, 360 and Wii have the same processing power.

He said that every PS2, every PS3, every 360 and every Wii has the same processing power (and reading deeper, it is obvious that he meant that their hardware is the same for every console in terms of system specs.)

 

So here comes the thing that makes me doubt that your system could fully handle this game had it been ported to PC.

Optimization is the word and it is quite important (heck, it's also related to why PS3 games have installations while 360 games don't. The "Loading times" excuse is definitely not the main reason ^^)

If you know that every 360 will behave the same, then it's quite easy to optimize the game. You only need to get it right once and then it'll work just as well on every other 360. Same with PS3, Wii and PS2.

PC is a whole different matter though.

Let's not forget that they are using the all new DMM technology and the possibly yet-to-be-perfected Euphoria technology here.

What this means is that they right off the bat get at least one new challenge when needing to optimize DMM to run well on the PS360s.

Not only is the technology new, it's also advanced and no doubt heavy on performance.

You have no idea how much work has gone into making the game run at a constant smooth framerate, despite all the massive havoc you can cause with a charged force push into a room full of rebels and explosives.

 

If they were to bring this straight over to PC, it seriously only would run that well on these high end 4000$ systems the developers are pointing at.

They would have to spend tons of work on optimizing it to run on a wide range of systems yet if they were to keep the full simulation aspect of TFU for this PC version, only high end systems would be able to play it well.

They wouldn't really be able to water it down either though.

Since the game is designed around the use of these technologies to the extent they are used, any watering down would be easily spotted. Just imagine if force pushing open the doors would look exactly the same no matter what direction you push from. Anyone who has read about the game would notice that it had been removed.

Same with Euphoria. If they were to remove it, it'd be clear as day that they had as soon as you'd start using Force Grip.

If they only were to remove certain things from these technologies, they would probably appear unfinished or glitchy at times and that would, again, make people complain.

 

Considering that these technologies are bound to put a heavy strain on CPU use, they wouldn't be able to make it run on low- to mid-end systems without doing changes like these and that's what they decided they wouldn't do.

Either low end users are given the finger and mid end users complain about heavy performance demands or the high end users are given the finger and the mid end users complain about the downscaling of the game.

 

Making an entire new version for PC in the same spirit as the Wii, PS2 and handheld versions would also be crazy.

If anything, those versions can exist because their production values instantly are way lower than the PS360 version.

They have the story ready for them, they have several design choices ready for them and they don't have to go out of their way to pull off combining new and advanced technologies with each others like the PS360 version.

There aren't tons of low-budged PS2 games for no reason and imagine if the storyline, music, voice acting and visual design is all finished for you?

 

If the PC version was any less than the PS360 version though, people would complain and most would tell others to not buy the PC version.

The PC version would become the bullied middle brother between the PS360 game that is superior in production values and quality and the PS2/Wii/Portable games that are great for their own platforms.

 

 

Does this make the lack of a PC version more justified perhaps?

I kinda went into rant-mode. I would kill somebody if this post suddenly disappeared right now xD

I hope nobody was offended by anything I said. I apologize if you were and promptly hide between the rarely accepted excuse that is "It's in the middle of the night" ^^

 

(Yes, I probably need a life. Or sleep. Or both.)

 

 

 

Edit: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say "Quote half of the thread"? I meant "Fill up one fourth of it" =D

[Great Scott!]

I'm sticking with Wii. I'm a Nintendo guy after all.

[GeneralPloKoon]

I picked no...sorry PC people(*hides*)!

[ParaCore]

Going to not quote that to spare the extra length, however:

 

I did misunderstand what was said about the power of the consoles then, did not think of that - I apologize for that.

 

However, when I say they should release a PC version, I am saying this from the standpoint of being willing to wait for them to optimize it to work well on PC - in fact, I would hope they would or it would turn out like a lot of other bad ports - granted, I don't want them to make the console people wait, but still, if I recall GTA IV is doing this right now.

 

As far as mid range goes, from what I can tell - you can probably build a fairly good mid-range comp now. The 8800s have gone down quite a bit in price last I looked, $150 for an 8800GT which you could SLI easily and cost less than what I paid for my one 8800GTX - granted not everyone would be able to build their comp, but still. Personally, I think if they did it, and did it right, it would still pay off for them.

 

Graphics arent the reason I want it - it looks like it has fun gameplay. Graphics rarely really hinder weather or not I buy a game (Unless its like Merc 2 and dosnt even currently support 16:10 ratio, so I can't get 1680x1050 on it - glad they didnt have it when I went to buy it tbh).

 

And yea, I have the old tie fighter/x-wing games, as well as the jedi knight dark forces games (Including the original dark forces)

 

I just hope, if this dosnt go on PC, they make a cool Star Wars PC game with new game technologies.

[Aku]

Yeah, but the issue is that when they'd hit the limit for how much they can optimize, they'd end up having to downscale on euphoria and DMM (since both of these rely mainly on CPU rather than GPU) and it's not quite as simple as setting DMM to "low" for anything low to mid end xD

 

 

I spent most of today playing Mercs 2 actually. You can't set widescreen at all (the community is going berserk about it =D) so I can't get my 1680x1050 yet either...But I've found myself not caring about the incorrect aspect ratio and too low resolution. It has almost started to feel "right" by now xD

God, Mercs 2 is awesome. Makes me wish I had gotten it for 360 instead of PC to get around the "horrible port" issue xD

[ParaCore]

Yeah, but the issue is that when they'd hit the limit for how much they can optimize, they'd end up having to downscale on euphoria and DMM (since both of these rely mainly on CPU rather than GPU) and it's not quite as simple as setting DMM to "low" for anything low to mid end xD

 

 

I can see how it would not be able to handle these CPU wise, after doing a bit more research on the Xbox 360 processor and the DMM and euphoria.

 

They might be able to do PhysX type thing and take advantage of CUDA running PhysX on 8 series - but I don't know how/if that would work, and if it did it would probably either hinder graphics or would cost them quite a bit more time and money to do.

 

Did not realise the Xbox 360 had that powerful of a processor, if they couldnt get the PhysX (Or something like it letting the GPU power some of the physics processing) I would guess you would need a quad core at least to handle it (I don't know how many threads/cycle the current Intel core CPUs handle atm - too tired to really look it up.)

 

Just to clarify before some one starts ranting about technical incorrectness in my post (Note: Not aiming this at you Aku, just anyone who would come in and rudely say how im incorrect): I am half asleep, and tired - so im not really in the mood to look up if they could do what I said or not, and still have it be just as good.

 

Granted, noone with a mid level system would be able to run it, so it would probably pull a Crysis sales wise.

 

 

I think this could probably be done on PC, just it would have to be made *for* the PC, and not ported, which is really sad but hopefully they will do something like it.

 

I spent most of today playing Mercs 2 actually. You can't set widescreen at all (the community is going berserk about it =D) so I can't get my 1680x1050 yet either...But I've found myself not caring about the incorrect aspect ratio and too low resolution. It has almost started to feel "right" by now xD

God, Mercs 2 is awesome. Makes me wish I had gotten it for 360 instead of PC to get around the "horrible port" issue xD

 

Personally, aside from SecuROM being on it, if they fixed the widescreen problem id be happy to buy it for PC - and you can get rid of SecuROM afaik (I am just not a fan of all that anti-copy/piracy crap they stick in games, which does little to nothing to prevent it from getting pirated in the first place).

[Aku]

Aside from people underestimating the hardware of the consoles, the numbers actually can't be directly comparedto a PC when it comes to gaming since unlike PCs, this hardware is completely dedicated (and in many cases specifically adapted) to the games it runs and that makes it optimized in a whole different way.

That's why PC ports often have bad optimization too ^^

[ParaCore]

Aside from people underestimating the hardware of the consoles, the numbers actually can't be directly comparedto a PC when it comes to gaming since unlike PCs, this hardware is completely dedicated (and in many cases specifically adapted) to the games it runs and that makes it optimized in a whole different way.

That's why PC ports often have bad optimization too ^^

 

 

Yea, I honestly have no problem with consoles - I just dislike the fact that in order to get an Xbox 360, I will need:

1) Get the unit itself, $300 or so.

2) Probably will need to be wireless, in which case, from what I know I have to get some special wireless adapter for it (More money...)

3) My TV probably isnt even worth using really, so I would want to hook it up to my monitor which probably wouldnt work since its 16:10 - even though it has HDMI. So I would either have to use an older TV or buy a new one (Eventually).

4) In order to play online I need that Xbox Live Gold crap, afaik, which is more money... granted, not much, but I can easily play PC games online with what we pay for internet now, and I can do much much more to boot.

 

I don't know, I just feel like they are trying to milk everyone for money with alot of this stuff, which I don't like. And lately mostly every PC game coming out that I can see, aside from a few basically suck (At least, the games type I like to play), and the only ones that test my graphics card is Crysis...

 

The xbox360 looks to be worth it (So does the PS3, honestly - and they aren't going to crap bricks if you stick Linux on it...), but there just isnt the money to spend on it all right now.

[Ztalker]

Check it out...

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/09/08/scoop-the-force-unleashed-is-coming-to-pc/

 

“It’s just been released last week on the internet, the Force Unleashed demo on both the PS3 and Xbox 360. We have a PC version as well.”

 

Big fat rumour...but I think it's plausible. The game scored 7's and 8's at best, opposing the possible 9's and 10's they were aiming for. I suppose a PC version would at least sell them some more copies then the cold hard review numbers did.

[Aku]

Probably will need to be wireless, in which case, from what I know I have to get some special wireless adapter for it (More money...)

Indeed. I got mine with a bundle.

My TV probably isnt even worth using really, so I would want to hook it up to my monitor which probably wouldnt work since its 16:10 - even though it has HDMI. So I would either have to use an older TV or buy a new one (Eventually).

You said you run on 1680x1050, right? That would make it the same as mine. Worry not, it runs like a charm and looks great, even more so if you have HDMI (I have an old 360 so mine lacks HDMI ports completely)

In order to play online I need that Xbox Live Gold crap, afaik, which is more money... granted, not much, but I can easily play PC games online with what we pay for internet now, and I can do much much more to boot.

Yeah, that's the biggest downside.

On the other hand, the 360 has a superior online service compared to that of PS3 or Wii and if you're starting out with TFU, then you won't have a need of online play. You still get access to the online service without paying and you get one month of free online at first.

The chances of them making Xbox Live Gold free are huge though. It is probable that it is going to happen soon enough.

 

 

A console doesn't require periodic upgrades though (that whole techno-babble regarding optimization means there'll be more and more advanced games coming out regardless) so it'll basically be good for its entire lifetime (which is likely to be at least three to five more years for the current gen consoles.)

In that sense, it's way cheaper than a PC xD

And yes, I agree that consoles are getting all the cool titles right now. Fortunately, many of them are multi-platform ^^

[Yoda31]

I agree they should release a PC version for the game...Regardless of what there true motive is and i understand AKU what you meant but most PCs out there are powerful enough to have a decent version of the game......and put enough of the new tech to make it work....so to me it sounds like an excuse not to do....Hopefully they will change there minds...

 

I vote yes to PC

[Uranium - 235]

This is pathetic.

 

Their 'reason' for not coming to the PC has absolutely no substance at all to it - only someone utterly unfamiliar with PCs would accept that. Frankly, I think it's because they themselves don't understand PC gaming, and perhaps knew that we would despise the dumbed-down game they've presented.

 

Console hardware *IS* inferior to PC hardware. I played the demo on the PS3 - which should pretty much be the 'best' version of the game. There was absolutely NOTHING there that hasn't been done on PCs in the last two years +. You would *not* need a "$4000 computer" to play this.

 

In fact, you can run Crysis rather handsomly on a $700 PC. They're trying to insist that their crappy physics (that is *NOT* present everywhere, and is hardly noticeable overall) would melt that rig, that their game is better looking than Crysis.

 

No, that's an outright lie.

 

Performance reasons is NOT the real reason. Why don't you tell us the truth?

[Aku]

I know quite a bit about both console and PC hardware.

 

What you don't seem to realize is that simulation technologies are advanced.

All games everywhere cheat. They find ways to fake realism.

 

The physics in Crysis are a joke. Every object is by default hovering in the air until an external force affects them so in other words, their destructible shacks are glorified cardhouses. That's the kind of faking games use to not strain hardware because while simply recreating reality would be an easy task, it is too heavy on hardware to be feasible.

 

If you break a tree in Crysis, it just splits into two pre-fabricated parts. If you break a tree in The Force Unleashed, it actually calculates how these parts would look and behave in real-time. It is dynamically generated.

 

With both AI and physics generated on the spot in this manner, it's obvious that the hardware requirements are unusually high. The problem here doesn't lie with GPU as you seem to be claiming (Crysis is way heavier on graphics than it is on CPU requirement and the only real CPU drain comes from the provenly bad physics system) but with CPU.

They never said ot looks better than Crysis, they only said it is heavier on hardware. I refer you to my previous long post regarding the difficulty of optimization for PC games ^^

 

Plus there's the wide audience issue.

 

(Oh and do note that I do like Crysis a lot. I'm not bashing it, I'm just pointing out that the physics in it are below average in quality)

[Ztalker]

Correct, first game to use REAL physics is Red Faction: Guerilla. Check it out if you want too. All game journalists have pointed out it's the only real thing out there.

 

Even Battlefield Bad company cheated. She smoke was simply a coverup to replace the textures with damaged textures.

[Aku]

Yeah, I looked more closely at Red Faction: Guerilla. From what I can see, they've made tons of pre-broken parts that everything can be replaced with.

It is, yet again, cheating. It's just done all the way through making it appear much better.

Even DMM cheats, the trick is just to cheat really well when it comes to these things.

Red Faction: Guerilla is probably the most convincing one out there at the moment though ^^

[ParaCore]

Indeed. I got mine with a bundle.

 

You said you run on 1680x1050, right? That would make it the same as mine. Worry not, it runs like a charm and looks great, even more so if you have HDMI (I have an old 360 so mine lacks HDMI ports completely)

 

 

Aye, I think all of the $300 Xbox 360s have HDMI now, so that probably wont be too much of a problem. My monitor is a 16:10 1680x1050 monitor. So that will work fine with an Xbox360? Thought the Xbox360 ran at the same res that made Merc 2 look odd to people on monitors like this?

 

Yeah, that's the biggest downside.

On the other hand, the 360 has a superior online service compared to that of PS3 or Wii and if you're starting out with TFU, then you won't have a need of online play. You still get access to the online service without paying and you get one month of free online at first.

The chances of them making Xbox Live Gold free are huge though. It is probable that it is going to happen soon enough.

 

Yea, I plan on getting probably TFU, GTA IV and Merc 2, probably crackdown too sometime. Ill probably want GTA IV and Merc 2 for PC, if they run ok, just for the chance that I can mod them - if I can't though I probably wont get them for PC.

 

A console doesn't require periodic upgrades though (that whole techno-babble regarding optimization means there'll be more and more advanced games coming out regardless) so it'll basically be good for its entire lifetime (which is likely to be at least three to five more years for the current gen consoles.)

In that sense, it's way cheaper than a PC xD

And yes, I agree that consoles are getting all the cool titles right now. Fortunately, many of them are multi-platform ^^

 

Yea, I do actually know what your talking about with the "techno-babble" I just never looked into the fact that the Xbox 360 had that much processing power.

 

On the same note though, the PC can do more, just not as good, as we have noted, since there are so many hardware variations and its trying to do so many things.

 

Personally ill probably be upgrading this to a quad core some time.

 

 

@Crysis physics stuff:

 

Yea, I was actually talking to a friend of mine about this the other day, pointing out how the physics were faked in areas. I actually referred to the shacks as houses of cards too, lol. While faked, I still love blowing them up with modded weapons, and you can't beat that C++ SDK (Yay for punching AI through shacks at like 500MPH).

 

I still think its entirely possible to run this game on PC, it is just a matter of how good of a PC. If they could use CUDA (Or the ATI Equivalent) to run the physics (Or some of them), then im sure it would run on my PC - but then we get into the issue of how much are they willing to spend and lose to do this, both money and time wise. Not everyone has a graphics card that can take advantage of CUDA.