Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

360 Limitations? [Serious]Follow

#1 Jun 03 2009 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
931 posts
Today at Square Enix's Q&A, they talked about considering putting the game on a Microsoft console as well as the PS3/PC.

I was really excited about everything else, but this made me worry.

I am not a Sony fanboy.
I own an Xbox 360 and a PC for my gaming needs.

That being said, I do not trust my Xbox 360 at all.
Of all the 360 games I've owned, I can only think of one that didn't give me any major technical issues; Tales of Vesperia, and that game isn't exactly pushing the console to its limits with cel-shaded graphics.

JRPGs from Square Enix in particular have given me major problems with frame rate/lag, such as in The Last Remnant and Infinite Undiscovery.

FFXI on the 360 is just horrible, but I guess pointing that out is not fair. (?)
I don't really need to go into details.

I owned a PS3 for a short time and while the game selection didn't really appeal to me it was definitely good hardware.
I didn't experience any of the problems that I have on my 360, regardless of the graphics/quality of the game I was playing.

I really want Square Enix's next MMORPG to succeed, especially now that it's officially the next Final Fantasy title.

Obviously, the game was just announced yesterday, and it's far too early to assume things like this, but...
Square Enix went out of their way to correct Sony's big announcement about the game's console exclusivity, and... well, we all know what happened with Final Fantasy XI and XIII.

Some might say it's just smart business to at least attempt an Xbox 360 release for XIV.

My question is, do you guys think an Xbox 360 version of FFXIV could potentially hold back the game's development like the PS2 version of FFXI supposedly does?

Would an Xbox 360 be able to provide stability in a massively multiplayer online game with graphics similar to those seen in FFXIII?

I'd like to hear what people have to say about this; especially anyone that's a little more knowledgeable about the console's specifications and what it can handle.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 8:18pm by Poubelle
____________________________
MUTED
#2 Jun 03 2009 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
*
193 posts
Considering the fact that the PS3 is already going to hold this game back, of course so is the xbox360.

No matter what technology just keeps marching forward and tying a game down to a system that's already 4 years old is risky. If it becomes very popular on the PS3 and Xbox360 PC players will have to live within the limits set forth when the game was first designed.

Of course watch out for all the PS3 fanbois running around at this site touting their paper statistics of the PS3.
#3 Jun 03 2009 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Between the FFXI port to the 360 and the disappointing performance of TLR, I'm guessing that SE will have learned by now that if they're going to develop for the 360, they need to do it right, and they need to do it right the first time. It doesn't matter what neat goodies they implement in FFXIV if it's technical performance on a platform leaves players feeling like they wasted their money to buy the game.
#4 Jun 03 2009 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
**
255 posts
360 as hardware doesn't have limitation, what it has limitations is some of the policis xbox live has, they are really so closed to begin with, Microsoft probably right now don't want PS3 and 360 players to play together, and this is what made the game not being PS3/360/PC since the start, the "consideration" thing, might be SE just having talks with Microsoft at these matters.
#5 Jun 03 2009 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,246 posts
Besides occasional lag, which to be honest I couldn't tell whether it was just the whole shaky cam thing or not, Lost odyssey has to be the most complete and together JRPG I've played this gen. It show cased the REAL potentional of next gen RPGs to me.

Unfortunately it has alot to do with them atempting to all use the unreal engine, case and point: The last remnant, which quite clearly isn't designed for RPGs. Tranisiting from scene to scene isn't one of its "things", it better handles loading large amounts of physics lighting and terrain all at once to be scaled depending on it visibility. Generally JRPGs require alot of rendering all at once, on the fly too. So when the unreal engine specializes in rednering large things that adapt over time, you can see the conflict there.

Infinite Undiscovery was published by SE but was actually made by Tri-ace, so that doesn't count too much.


Crystal Tools is obviously what SE hope to be the RPG worlds answer to the more FPS orientated Unreal Engine. By all accounts, some things I saw in FF12 made me question how they pulled it off to be lag free. Now unfortunately FFXI was their first venture into online play, and I always saw lag as one of those side-effects. But like the devs have repeated, using this experience, they've mst likely now made for us a lag-free game.


It's also worth pointing out that the PS2 limitations on FFXI are memory, it has something like 20MB or something stupid like that? compared to the 360s 512MB DDR3. Graphics wise, neither of the two pieces of hardware actually have ANY advantage. The one reason games like MGS4 REALLY aren't on this is because of Develepors being too cheap to use more then 2-3 DVDs. If a Blu Ray disk can hold 50GB and a DLDVD Can hold 7GB that's roughly 6 DVDs, which is kinda understamdable, but theres also huge amounts of compression opertunities too to make it a reasonable 4 disks

____________________________
Meowth!
#6 Jun 03 2009 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
**
255 posts
Lost Odyssey was actually pointless at many things, gameplay and story, any JRPG hardcore gamer that is some objetive would see it, IU... about IU, IU is a weird game, it has really great moments, from both history and gameplay, and the worst moments ever.

And there's Star Ocean, awful gameplay(i don't mean battles, that's just fine), worse Star Ocean out there, first one, SO2 and SO3, it has framerate issues and it doesn't look great at all.

Now to the topic, 360 could deal with the game with no problems, the issues with those games isn't because of the hardware, but because they rushed the launch date, IU needed some more months to go, and so did SO4, they have issues indeed, but like i said those issues are there for rushing with the game launch.

Crystal tools is compatible with 360, it could be look a little worse than PS3? well, we don't know yet, maybe yes, maybe not, but they could have the game done on 360 with no problems at all.
#7 Jun 03 2009 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,949 posts
Xbox360 and PS3 are roughly the same level of power, hardware wise. While the PS3 might actually be stronger, the X360 more than makes it up for it with its simpler architecture. At the end of the day, you can push pretty much the same quality of game on both, but you'll have headache programming the **** thing on the PS3.

Maybe Square-Enix's engineers see it the other way around, but in the end, the real problem is; it's not as trivial as many people think to make a game work on both consoles, and you can bet that if they limit themselves because of _A_ console, they'll limit themselves because of both.
____________________________
FFXIV: Cloe Delisle Scholar, officer of the SWAGGER Free company, Sargatanas server.
#8 Jun 03 2009 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Considering the fact that the PS3 is already going to hold this game back, of course so is the xbox360.


hard to see how that is possible without the pc build being something most computers couldn't run. You'd have to keep the graphics close to that level anyways so enough people could play it anyways, and the PS3 can definitely run current gen pc games fine.

As for 360 limitations, I think its more them seeing if a 360 version is worth it, since not as many people play on console here compared to japan.
____________________________
Retired.
#9 Jun 03 2009 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,804 posts
The Neispace of Doom wrote:
hard to see how that is possible without the pc build being something most computers couldn't run. You'd have to keep the graphics close to that level anyways so enough people could play it anyways, and the PS3 can definitely run current gen pc games fine.

As for 360 limitations, I think its more them seeing if a 360 version is worth it, since not as many people play on console here compared to japan.

It's not just about graphical power. Currently the 360 cannot run a fully update TF2 game. The game can easily run on a very old pc, but the 360 lacks the ram necessary to process the new content. Consoles always have limitations.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 9:14pm by Allegory
#10 Jun 03 2009 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
**
255 posts
PS3 isnt going to hold this game, do you see any mmorpg out there that actually has really good graphics? most of them could be done on xbox 1, except AoC (which is a fail as game).

the 720p trailer shows an ingame escene, and it really kick ***.
#11 Jun 03 2009 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,804 posts
Squallido wrote:
PS3 isnt going to hold this game, do you see any mmorpg out there that actually has really good graphics? most of them could be done on xbox 1, except AoC (which is a fail as game).

Like I said there are more issues than just graphics to consider. The PS3 has only 256 MB of RAM for the CPU. A typical computer today has around 2 GB.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 9:36pm by Allegory
#12 Jun 03 2009 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
It's not just about graphical power. Currently the 360 cannot run a fully update TF2 game. The game can easily run on a very old pc, but the 360 lacks the ram necessary to process the new content. Consoles always have limitations.


Valve isn't a console company though, and they honestly don't develop a lot of games period, so they don't think to plan workarounds for it. You take a console-friendly developer and turn them loose and its less of an issue imo, and they can mitigate a lot more of the issues specific to it.

TBH anyways consoles also have benefits. You have a game optimized for only one platform, with no hardware conflicts and you get what the developers wants you to see-no having to dial down resolution, effects, or frame rate because your pc is under spec. Plus, it's plug-and-play and generally hassle free. Reading about the horror stories here from both having to deal with FFXI and Vista as well as trojans makes me wince a bit.


____________________________
Retired.
#13 Jun 04 2009 at 1:40 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,246 posts
Crysis would NOT run on a PS3 with the highest possible settings at a maintained 60+fps (and nor a 360 either)

On the other there are in fact completely viable consumer PC setups that will run the game like silk under the highest settings. This is pretty much what that game showcased, such high levels of detail that you would be able to push hardware to its absolute limit.

Saying a console is better then a PC is completely inacurate. You can sprout of numbers, cores and bandwidth here there and everywhere, but the fact of the matter is, PCs are built with intensive processing in mind.
____________________________
Meowth!
#14 Jun 04 2009 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good
**
255 posts
@allegory, FALSE, PS3 has 512 RAM...

And, that crap of 2GB, you can play most MMORPG even with 512 MB, and a closed hardware is so different than a open hardware like pc, which to run something PS3 can run with 512 MB, probably needs 1 gb instead.

And, again, it's 512 MB, 512! that stuff of 256 mb only is an urban legend which people demostrated that it is absolute FALSE, PS3 can use the other 256 MB of video how developers wants, so it is 512.

PS3 don't hold the game, like i said there ain't mmos out there that can be considered next gen graphically, and FFXIV is going to, so...
#15 Jun 04 2009 at 3:23 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,099 posts
You can't really compare console RAM with PC RAM, its apples and oranges comparison. A PC needs RAM for a lot of things, it has to run the OS behind it (which takes up 1GB on its own), a PC will use the RAM to store things in rather than use the hard drives page file. Because of the things a PC needs to do with RAM you require, lots. A consoles RAM is dedicated to one thing only, playing the game which means you don't really need as much, it doesn't have the background tasks going on that a PC does.

svchost.exe - 68MB
fssm32.exe - 50MB
iexplore.exe - 47MB
iexplore.exe - 35MB
outlook.exe - 30MB

Thats almost 240MB just on the first 5 things running, and I have 66 processes running, a console doesn't have these overheads.
____________________________
A strange obsession, mine. But better to be addicted to smartphones and gismos than cocaine or ***, I suppose. Well, I don’t know, the result is the same after all, very little sleep, great expense and horrific mess everywhere.

-- Stephen Fry
#16 Jun 04 2009 at 3:37 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,804 posts
Squallido wrote:
@allegory, FALSE, PS3 has 512 RAM...

Not on the CPU. It has another 256 RAM for the GPU, but the CPU is incapable of sharing that memory.
#17 Jun 04 2009 at 9:38 PM Rating: Default
*
193 posts
Way too many ridiculous, perhaps young, enthusiastic people in this thread for PS3. I get they feeling they have some website pulled up from their favorites folder that tells the specs of the PS3, and while they let us know how great those stats are at this website... they forget it's all about actual hardware and what the system is actually capable of.

Somebody please screenshot every single thread where these people keep preaching about the power of the PS3. Save the ones where they talk about how more powerful the PS3 is compared to the top of the line GPU's of today.

I want all of this saved so we can laugh so hard at this 2 years time after the game has been out. I want to show you that all of the middle of the line graphics cards now out perform the PS3 easily. Then when SE announces another new expansion for FFXIV and that making sure it can still function on the PS3 (and Xbox360 is what is holding it back from DirectX 12 shaders and tessellation)is holding back the true power of what they could do... but can't because of the limitations...

I want to show this, and laugh so hard at those people, and hope maybe they've grown up a little by then.
#18 Jun 04 2009 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
28 posts
What I like about the PC is that I can adapt it to run FFXI over time. I plan on spending probably another 5 years on this MMO so it'll be nice to be able to adapt my PC somewhere down the road.

The only thing I can do with my PS3 is upgrade the hard drive to one with a faster RPM. I saw a 500 GB 2.5 inch hard drive at Best Buy, but there's also a 320 GB 2.5 inch that runs at 7200rpm. A faster hard drive would probably only help if the game runs with separate zones as opposed to a seamless world. We'll have to see when the time comes I guess.
#19 Jun 05 2009 at 1:15 AM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
The game is being developed with the Crystal Tools multiplatform engine, so all this tripe about what system is gonna ruin the experience for everyone else is simply absurd. The engine itself, at the end of the day, will determine what this game will be capable of. And that engine works very well on the PS3 and 360. Yes, if/when the 360 receives a port of VIX it will be the weakest of the platforms that run it. But we've already seen that it runs Crystal Tools, and seems to do a fine job of it. I would expect the differences (if any) to be felt through reduced draw distances or lower textures for the systems not able to fully render the game. Kind of like many PC users won't be running this at max settings with the systems they now have.

Sure, the high end PC users will like have access to resolutions above the console versions. But TVs don't run those resolutions anyhow, and I don't think we'll have reason to complain about the graphical quality of this MMO for years to come.
#20 Jun 05 2009 at 1:29 AM Rating: Decent
*
118 posts

Iam a SONY fan boy.

But i really hope this game out too in xbox360 and the PC/XBOX360/ps3 can share the same servers. this will be awesome for the "live this game" with the 3 togheter. we will have 4500 - 6000 players on all days per server and it will be "awesome"

about xbox360 specs dont worry. ps3 and xbox360 are the consoles more "EVEN MATCH" in the video games story.

and the games are ported 360 -> ps3. are better on xbox360 i hate say it but is true. So dont worry about the specs. and the games are ported ps3 -> xbox360 usually on xbox360 the game looks a little better.

(The only little problem i can see but the new xbox dont have so often this problem is) -> The hardware xbox360 sometimes burn. for use it long periods of time

and This game is a MMRPG so is a game you will be playing long periods of time like 4 - 5 hours per day. without this i dont see xbox 360 have a problem handling the game.



Edited, Jun 5th 2009 5:29am by Shakca
#21 Jun 05 2009 at 1:41 AM Rating: Decent
*
118 posts
Allegory wrote:
Squallido wrote:
PS3 isnt going to hold this game, do you see any mmorpg out there that actually has really good graphics? most of them could be done on xbox 1, except AoC (which is a fail as game).

Like I said there are more issues than just graphics to consider. The PS3 has only 256 MB of RAM for the CPU. A typical computer today has around 2 GB.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 9:36pm by Allegory


Well i was waiting "Rapture" For Very very long time. On my Console.

Now i know is FFIV i can say. for the respect my console i will play the first 2 years on my ps3 it. is will makeme very happy have it first on my console because it makeme feel iam "Hardcore gamer"

Right now i have a PC very very High end. and iam sure with this PC can handle this game without see it right yet.

I have 2 Graphic cards runing on sli and a CPU I7. this is more for a respect my console because iam a Sony Fan boy.

And i will be Super happy if the game Run 720p on my ps3. this Resolution for me is enough for makeme happy.

Note (If the game run 480p on console. or less 720p) Then maybe i only play it the first year in my ps3 then move PC. but i "BET" the game will be maked "720p" and for me that resolution Looks great ^^

Maybe on pc high end users will use 1900 x 1200 with AA. etc and full efffects. but The 2 first years as a rule i will play it in console =)

and PS3 have 512 Ram. have 2 rams 256 mb. the problem is this

xbox360 have 512 and it can send textures 512 mb.
Ps3 can send 256 mb textures "Max" but it can share the textures with 2, 256 RAM

And when a game will run in a console. The console give 100% power for the game. and The pc even if you have 16 GB RAM. the best Graphic card in the world.

"The pc need charge Operating system" The pc need do lots of things a console Will ignore for give 100% the power to the game.

If a xbox360 guy -> buy a Tri core cpu, 512 ram and a graphic card same xbox360 That player in that PC NEVER will can run Gears of wars 2 like the xbox 360 run it. we knew for a pc can defeat a console the pc need have the double potency than a console ^^

PC -> Rich players who will spend 800 dolars on a High end pc
console xbox360, ps3 -> is for average people who dont have tons of money for every year change and change the pc.


Edited, Jun 5th 2009 5:47am by Shakca
#22 Jun 05 2009 at 1:52 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,239 posts
Since when is 800$ a high end pc?
____________________________
Byxfluzba: Valefor Bastok Rank10
WAR37 MNK9 WHM75 BLM37 RDM37 THF37
PLD42 DRK1 BST10 BRD37 RNG9 SAM41 NIN40 DRG80 SMN40
BLU37 PUP8 COR5 DNC13 SCH75 Merits388
ZM Complete PM Complete AM Complete WM 15.
#23 Jun 05 2009 at 2:01 AM Rating: Decent
*
118 posts
Byxfluzba wrote:
Since when is 800$ a high end pc?


Well 800 -> 1200 in compUSA you can get a high end pc. Not The new best pc in the year. but i did help a friend build a new pc with 860 dolars in compusa.

And this guy can run games like crisis "high end". if you want a pc with parts are out for sell 2009. then it will cost you 3000 dolars. but the perfomance you will get for pay 2000 dolars more not worth your money.

With 800 - 1200 in comp usa Try and you will put togheter a "VERY GOOD PC" not the best but yes a pc can handle 90% of games until now 2009

If you spend 400 - 600 dolars i bet some NEW games will have a problems for Run 100%.

a 280 - 400 dolars PC never will Defeat a XBOX360 or ps3 console in this year.

Note -> i had a Intel core duo 2.5 ghz and 8800 Nvidia GT. 2 GB ram was my pc for some time. but this year i change it for a "high end pc"

i had problems for run Gears of wars 1280 x 720 p, i never did can Run crysis more than 1024 x 768 in High settings. and FEAR2 never did can get the qualify i have it on my ps3.

Edited, Jun 5th 2009 6:07am by Shakca
#24 Jun 05 2009 at 2:18 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,246 posts
I posted in another thread how to build a PC for less then £300 (or about $500)

If you don't own a PS3 and are worried about 360 or don't want to wait, then just build one, I think they've made it clear it's not gonna run on anything below a Dual core CPU and a 512MB graphics card. But if you have the foundations of one you can upgrade for half the cost of a PS3 and about the same as a 360. This will most likely also run the game on mid-high settings with ease

Either that or you can just hope that maybe OnLive reaches us before then and is supported by FF14

As for 360 limitations, any CONSOLE is gonna have limitations with MMOs, because MMORPGS aren't exactly what they excel in. FFXI requires an intense amount of data in short time due to the way it works. Now I'm not saying the PS3 is slow, but if anything it will experience lag in some areas. As will the 360. And unless you're running a high end PC, so will the PC.
____________________________
Meowth!
#25 Jun 05 2009 at 2:29 AM Rating: Default
**
255 posts
@ditx, PS3 is getting an FPS this year where 256 players play together (there isn't any PC game like that, but i might be failing) do you really think the PS3 could have issues with lag? just lol

And don't ever think FF14 will have onlive support, those stuff really suck.

About the PC needed, we don't know accurate specs for running the game, but it's gonna be @#%^ing high, so then maybe next year we can talk about it.

Edited, Jun 5th 2009 6:30am by Squallido
#26 Jun 05 2009 at 2:39 AM Rating: Default
*
118 posts
Squallido wrote:
@ditx, PS3 is getting an FPS this year where 256 players play together (there isn't any PC game like that, but i might be failing) do you really think the PS3 could have issues with lag? just lol

And don't ever think FF14 will have onlive support, those stuff really suck.

About the PC needed, we don't know accurate specs for running the game, but it's gonna be @#%^ing high, so then maybe next year we can talk about it.

Edited, Jun 5th 2009 6:30am by Squallido



I agree with you about ps3 thing

This new game will have 256 players togheter on ps3 will be A monster. and like how i say PC is rich players. can spend LOTS Of money every year changing the parts

and console is for More average players who dont have TONS of money for spend 100 dolars every 6 months.

And yes you can build a PC with 300 - 400 dolars. but For FFIV i dont believe with 300 - 400 dolars you can Play it on "HIGH END"

For FFIV and if the game will use Engine FFXIII is using. i think at less you will need 4 GBS ram and video card 9800 nvidia or ati 3800 series. and CPU. 4 cores for a High end.

Killzone 2 is a game increible for PS3 Tellme if with a 300 dolars pc Can run this kind of graphics

And with 300 dolars do you think can run Gears of wars 2 or RE5 now get out For pc? with 300 dolArs you even cant run crysis 70%....

There a xbox360 and ps3 Cheaper the new ps3 ver is like 300 dolars. and xbox 360 is even cheap. with 300 dolars have FFIV runing like a GOOD pc is better in my opinion
#27 Jun 05 2009 at 3:40 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,099 posts
$800 for a "high end" PC is bull. To buy a high end CPU on its own will cost me around £350, which is around $560. Add on another £200 for 1 VGA card ($360) and you are already over $800. High end PC's are not really consumer PC's like Dell's, high end PC's are generally built by the people who are making them.

They spend hours pouring over the specs for the motherboard, making sure its overclockable to insane level, then their choice of motherboard influences their choice of CPU. Got the best motherboard? (£200+) Got to make sure you have the right CPU, AMD won't fit in Intel, Intel won't fit in AMD. Then they spend hours pouring over benchmarks on VGA cards, checking how high they can overclock the card, then working out which aftermarket cooling will suit their videocard/CPU the best. Next up, RAM, which RAM should they get, what are the CAS, how overclockable is the RAM? Next up, power supply, a good power supply will easily set you back almost £200. Then you add on the case, which again, a good one can cost over £200.

$800 will buy you the bare minimum to run minesweeper at 30fps >.>

So please, do not confuse "consumer" PC's with "enthusiasts" PC's, most enthusiasts will happly pay $800 just for the latest, fastest video card when it is first released.
____________________________
A strange obsession, mine. But better to be addicted to smartphones and gismos than cocaine or ***, I suppose. Well, I don’t know, the result is the same after all, very little sleep, great expense and horrific mess everywhere.

-- Stephen Fry
#28 Jun 05 2009 at 3:55 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
16 posts
I can only talk from my own experience with PS3, X-Box and PCs. I've seen and played games on the X-Box, but i don't own one. To me it looked pretty much like a PS3 game. I have a PS3 and a pretty fast pc, and i've tried games on them and compared.

I bought my pc like half a year ago and it has Intel quadcore (Q9550 2.8 ghz), 4 GB ram and an ATI 4870 X2 (2GB ram). So it's pretty much still a high end machine at least in my eyes.

And one thing is certain, the pc definatly kicks the playstations *** when it comes to details. I run both system on a big flatscreen tv so im comparing the games on the same screen. Call of duty modern warfare looked very good on the pc, but on the playstation it looked a bit dull. The games on the PS3 still continue to get better and better as time goes by so we might get surprised at how much at can handle, but it will never be as good at handling games as a brand new pc filled with top of the line hardware.

When it comes to X-Box VS PS3 i'd say it's pretty much a draw. The playstation might last a little longer than the box, but who knows.

Whether or not FF 14 is coming on the X-Box, i have no idea. But i'm pretty sure that if they can make it work on the PS3 then it can work on the X-Box as well.


#29 Jun 05 2009 at 3:56 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,246 posts
As much as this multiplayer online game is promising, FPS's have far less going on then an MMO would. Firstly all it's doing is mapping out character movements, and loading small gunshot files and maybe the explosions and what not. The physics will already be preloaded so things like debris flying all over is taken care of.

Whereas in FFXI think whats going on in campaign, You have about 50 characters Casting Cures/Enfeebles/Stances/Attacking/Attack animation/Monster being hit animation/Chat log info/Miss and hit data being decided/Gear swapping being loaded/Position mapping/The world around you is still changin weather and lighting/Music is playing/You're accessing menus or macros/You have a LS running and much more going on all at one time.

All in all it's just far too much for any console to load in real time.

If FF14 is similar it won't be because its CPU is holding it back, but more over certain badwidths, with the disk and the HDD.

____________________________
Meowth!
#30 Jun 05 2009 at 4:49 AM Rating: Good
PM Me When You're Sober
Avatar
*****
15,787 posts
Shakca wrote:
Byxfluzba wrote:
Since when is 800$ a high end pc?


Well 800 -> 1200 in compUSA you can get a high end pc. Not The new best pc in the year. but i did help a friend build a new pc with 860 dolars in compusa.

And this guy can run games like crisis "high end". if you want a pc with parts are out for sell 2009. then it will cost you 3000 dolars. but the perfomance you will get for pay 2000 dolars more not worth your money.

With 800 - 1200 in comp usa Try and you will put togheter a "VERY GOOD PC" not the best but yes a pc can handle 90% of games until now 2009

If you spend 400 - 600 dolars i bet some NEW games will have a problems for Run 100%.

a 280 - 400 dolars PC never will Defeat a XBOX360 or ps3 console in this year.

Note -> i had a Intel core duo 2.5 ghz and 8800 Nvidia GT. 2 GB ram was my pc for some time. but this year i change it for a "high end pc"

i had problems for run Gears of wars 1280 x 720 p, i never did can Run crysis more than 1024 x 768 in High settings. and FEAR2 never did can get the qualify i have it on my ps3.

Edited, Jun 5th 2009 6:07am by Shakca
No DRG for party, camp spot site with 30 dmg, but is it for 20 like 30 dmg when you no hit be it for dd, for 30 dmg instead? or half is 10 for 20 dmg?
#31 Jun 05 2009 at 4:56 AM Rating: Decent
******
22,699 posts
Byxfluzba wrote:
Since when is 800$ a high end pc?


You haven't seen many of Shakca's posts have you? Codyy's response is the correct one.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#32 Jun 05 2009 at 5:06 AM Rating: Default
**
255 posts
but really, how can you say PS3 could limitate the PC version, when actually there isn't a single MMORPG that would be worth looking for a console as PS3.

About the data managing, there are simple programming tricks they could use, they don't have to use brute force always.

Edited, Jun 5th 2009 9:07am by Squallido

Adding something, PS3 can act like a PC really easily, it has HDD serialized, the game most likely won't use the bluray while playing, and, you can buy a 300 GB HDD for almost no bucks if you think 60-80 GB isn't enough.


Edited, Jun 5th 2009 9:09am by Squallido

Edited, Jun 5th 2009 9:10am by Squallido
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)