Word on the street has it that the latest installment to the Quake series is having a hard time making the jump to Microsoft's latest gaming console. The Gamespot crew reviewed it and says the framerate "gets downright atrocious in spots." Struggling under all kinds of graphical disappointments, Quake IV is said to just go limp on the Xbox 360. However, it's not an easy task taking those PC market graphics to a mass-marketable console. Other than having the multiplayer scaled back to a maximum of 8 players, when compared to the PC version's 16-player matches, the only real difference is in the aesthetics and performance.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-22-2005 @ 4:25PM
My guess would be they really rushed this game to get it out by launch.
Besides, it's Quake IV.
11-22-2005 @ 4:46PM
First: Yes, I am posting on a x360 fanboy site, so I expect this won't go over well.
Second: I *am* planning on getting a system, and I'm sure I will love it
It makes me LAUGH my ASS off to read a post like this. Suddenly, after years and years of listening to console fanboys pontificate endlessly about the virtues and graphical prowess of their brand new machines... Now, I finally see some real admission of "shit, I guess consoles really just can't keep up."
Now, before you start going on about "oh, well they need to port it," consider the platform is essentially a PC.
It's just a little smirk after years of trying to explain that consoles will never, ever be able to compete with PCs in terms of sheer graphics capabilities. Never gonna happen. But I'll still have some love for my X360, since it'll sit underneath my HDTV while my PC will sit underneath my dinky dual 19" flat panels.
11-22-2005 @ 5:45PM
Tucker, I totally agree =D Make no mistake, just because we're fanboys doesn't mean we won't call them out on something.
11-22-2005 @ 6:26PM
was probably somewhat rushed? and lack of experience writing code for three cores.
11-22-2005 @ 6:30PM
Reality Check said...
The problem with people who say "it's better on the PC" is glaring: the xbox 360 costs $399. A PC capable of playing Quake 4 and the latest games at the highest graphics settings is at least $1500, maybe a bit less if you're frugal and put it together yourself.
It's clear that, for those who don't want to spend the big bucks buying a new PC every 2 years, console is the way to go.
11-22-2005 @ 6:52PM
Its essentially a pc? How many pc's are running custom power pc chips? I thought so.
You can say that about xbox 1, not the 360.
11-22-2005 @ 7:01PM
Why does everyone feel the need to compare $1500 -$2000 computers with a $299 Xbox 360? Would you expect a Civic to out-run a Ferrari? Let's compare apples to apples. Another thing to consider is that there are games pushing way more polys than Quake IV and with no problem. That tells me that the problem lies with the developers of Quake than any deficiency of the 360. Launch games are always rushed and imperfect...but take a look at Gears of War and tell me the 360 doesn't have muscle.
11-22-2005 @ 9:39PM
wow, on my 400$ computer i built myself i can ply all this shit with my detail all the way up. granted i have 15" lcds that only hit 1024x768, but uh...you dont need 1500, or anywhere close to it, to play stuff like this.
11-23-2005 @ 5:52AM
Sure the 360 can handle it, it's just a bad and rushed port, not using the hardware efficiently.
Look at say Halo on the xbox and then its PC port. The PC port requires a much higher spec computer than the XBOX is, because it hadnt been redesigned enough to run efficiently on the PC.
360 is not just a PC. Its processor is entirely different.
11-23-2005 @ 10:26AM
I respect the position of PC gamers, for I was previously in the PC gamer category.
Then I got a mac and discovered I could do much more, faster and without viruses, but the games were not that great, and they arrived very late.
So, oh sweet irony for a mac user, I bought a *Microsoft* xbox. I am fully satisfied with the gameplay of such a console and I am planning on getting a 360.
I have friends who are constantly drooling over the new video cards to pimp their PCs. I personnally could not care less if a PC is much more powerful, with resolution and framerate (the human eye is limited so 30 or 60 fps doesn't matter), as long as the gameplay is equal (or better) on a console.
And given my previous experience with Windows at work, I am not missing these PC games one bit.
For work, iLife and e-mail: a mac, for gaming on the couch: Xbox. If you think it's expensive, ask a hard-core PC gamer how much he spends on constantly customizing hhis machine...
But I guess there is no definite answer here, it's a matter of taste... so live happy, wherever you stand on this.
11-23-2005 @ 10:01PM
"However, it's not an easy task taking those PC market graphics to a mass-marketable console. "
One of the major advantages with the first xbox, and the xbox 360, is in the ease that games are able to be ported to and from PC to it.
Please don't forget that MS are using the 360 controller as the 'best/standard' PC USB controller now as well, and that the XNA toolkit is designed to be used in both environments.
I don't have a 360, can't get one till next year here in Australia. So, without actually seeing or playing Quake 4 on the 360 i really can't pass judgement.
Gears of War on the 360, as I am sure you are aware, is using the Unreal 3 engine. This engine has been optimized for running on the 360, and it also the flag-ship title for that engine - so you'd expect it to be good!
The 360, at this time, doesn't appear to be all that and a bag of crisps. Frame rates are far below 60fps, sometimes lower than 30fps. I am sure things will improve once people learn the ins & outs of the system.
That said, if people don't know enough about the system you can blame MS for launching the thing too soon.
11-24-2005 @ 4:11AM
It damn well is possible for a console to outrun a PC for at least a couple of months after its launch and stay cheaper, you just need to understand the economics.
For one thing a graphics card and CPU (and all the other parts) must be sold at a profit on a PC, but on a console they can be sold ata a loss.
For a second thing console manufacturers can potentially invest in ridiculously advanced fabrication processes well beyond PC equivalent tech at the same point in time, knowing the extra investment will be recouped over the console's lifespan as the chips become simple compared to the average, while PC chips always have to be leading edge.
Third thing, console manufacturers can bet on producing far larger quantities of the same chips than any individual PC chip, which means you get better economies of scale.
Fourth thing (technical), consoles don't have to put up with as much background operating crap.
Fifth thing (technical), coders can optimise for 1 specific chipset and one specific power capability on a console where on a PC it has to be interoperable and scalable to cope with the market, which invariably takes a hit to the efficiency.
Seriously now, how many consumer PCs have triple core single die 3.2GHz CPUs? How many have unified shader GPUs? On the PS3 front (true it's not out): How many PCs have CPUs with 8 parrallel vector processing cores? How many do 100 billion shader ops per second?
You better believe it's possible, if not always done
11-24-2005 @ 10:00AM
Bad Juju said...
It was rushed to Market . . . . . the 360 that is. EA's games, 2k's game, Quake, are are already showing what the limitations of the system may be, And the companies have skilled developers. John Carmack is no slouch, and neither is EA's team. When Blu-Ray games start being the norm shortly after PS3, like DVD games did after ps2, that DVD-9 is going to come back to bite the 360 in the Arse', because if it was a rush job, then the 360's coding limitations are greater than these skilled programers anticipated, if it wasn't, then major sacrifices had to be made in order to fit these games onto a single DVD-9. Further, IBM didn't just piss their 3 core PPC chip to MS, while joing Toshiba, and Sony in a multi-billion dollar alliance for nothing.
It's funny how IBM is the big player in the console war 25 years after they invented the PC market then later got shafted by losing the PC war because of MS defection to the Clones.
11-24-2005 @ 7:47PM
"EA's games, 2k's game, Quake, are are already showing what the limitations of the system may be, And the companies have skilled developers. John Carmack is no slouch, and neither is EA's team."
You're so right ps3fanboy, Catwoman from EA is awesome. So is batman begins and Van Helsing. EA shoots garbage to market to make money, while having some gems in between. And I will buy a ps3 too, just because I want blu ray cheap, and I like final fantasy. But for almost everythig else, I will be playing on my perfectly unified online gaming console.
11-26-2005 @ 3:30PM
Limitations of the system? They aren't even using the full potential yet (multithreading not used), so saying the system is showing its limits already is silly. "Limitation claims" comes from people who don't program, and doesn't know how marketing deadlines and corporate business affect the software end-product. The 360 is plenty powerful, so make sure you don't dismiss it for Sony's usual false claims. Many developers actually like the 360 BETTER than the PS3 (they already have devkits). Sony seems to make it hard for developers and consumers with their shoddy warranties, oddball hardware choices, piracy scares, and false hype.
Don't give Blu-ray too much credit either. DVDs still took a while to get acceptance. Also, Sony doesn't handle their product lines very well (mini-disc, bad-lasers, low quality hardware are a few examples). Developers won't be quick to use 50GB for game other than FMVs. And at the current time, the read-spead of the PS3 drive is slower than the DVD9 for the 360. If it stays that way the Sony will be the slow player AGAIN.
However, Microsoft will need to pay attention to stay in this competition. They have put their name out there, but they will need to get developer support to stay in the game. And hopefully make it so consumers will not need to also purchase a PS3. I know I'll have to just for some exclusives.
11-26-2005 @ 3:31PM
The Quake port was rushed and isn't even using the full potential of the hardware. Notice how only recently the PS2 and XBox's hardware have been taken full advantage of? Anyway, I still like Q4 better than Halo and Doom 3 (but not Halo 2).
I don't understand the allure to PC gaming. Graphics? I mean I like Counterstrike on PC better than on the XBox, but I'd rather play it on the XBox. Consoles save a lot of trouble (booting, TSRs, vexing antivirus programs, drivers, spyware, hardware requirements, registration codes, etc.). Then there is online modding/hacking. Sure it happens on consoles, but no where close the amount it happens on PC gaming. As far as FPS' are concerned, it is great to add the easy accuracy of a mouse, but it's bad to lose the accuracy of analog movement.
The "next gen" has met up with PCs as far as specs go. 1GB of RAM would have been nice, but costs, costs, costs. An important difference that is often missed is that the XBox 360 doesn't have to run a large resource-wasting Operating System in the background, just whatever's on the onboard firmware. This results in console games getting to use more of the power of the available hardware.
If you haven't noticed, the graphics coming out of the XBox360 look pretty much like a high-end PC is producing it.
11-27-2005 @ 12:22AM
Quake IV (on the PC) runs only on Intel SSE capable procs. AMD people (myself included) are screwed.
The Xbox, beautifully, is the opposite of Intel. Its not even x86. Its freakin' PowerPC! They basically had to port that bitch to a Mac! I love Macs, but PC games ported to a Mac tend to suck.
11-27-2005 @ 4:44PM
@Cullen: Your $400 PC may handle those games right now, but try the same machine again in 4 years and see if you can say the same. The upgrade cycle for PC gaming is way more frequent than with consoles. The shit hot PC I bought for $1700 back in January 2002 wouldn't have a hope in hell of playing most of the games coming out these days. That's the appeal of consoles, and that's why they'll always be around.
11-27-2005 @ 9:06PM
Brendan, you do know that the Athlon XP has support for SSE, right? The A64 has SSE2 and in the newer Venice/San Diego cores SSE3 support... I'm not sure that Q4 even uses SSE, but regardless, athlon64 based systems will generally beat out the Intel ones anyway...