[Grug]

Then what are you doing posting in a gaming forum?

Passing time while I am at work 

Fine, I was doing the same while passing time at uni. Don't assume people don't have lives just because they visit an online forum. As you yourself even appear to do. This I aquaint with snobbishness.
But most especially the FS2 community, which for the majority consists of a more mature bunch of members. (obviously there are some exclusions however... I'm not certain on DeepBlue's age for example...)
On a counterstrike forum sure, but the freespace community I at least like to think a little bit more mature then the mostly bickering infants that give CS such a bad name.

Now let us reiterate: Revolution FTW!

[Unknown Target]

deftonesmx17, maybe when you've been here longer or are aware of the community's history you can make comments like that, but as for now, I'd say the FS community is one of the most mature on the web, and most of us do have lives. Like Grug said, there are exceptions, but those are easily noticable.

Anyway, I'm just wondering: if they can squeeze so much power out of some console board Nvidia and Celeron chips, how come something with similar performance on a PC just tanks on games of similar graphics? Is it  because the PC architecture is so bloated, or what?

[deftonesmx17]

Don't assume people don't have lives just because they visit an online forum. As you yourself even appear to do. This I aquaint with snobbishness.

WTF I wasnt saying anyone needs to get a life because they are posting on a forum. I was saying to get a real girl with that $10 and look at real boobs instead of wasting it on a game so they can look at "juggly simulation" in a video game............

and to both of you harping on the maturity thing, a mature person wouldnt jump the gun, condemn me for what I said, and dwell on the subject............especially since I never told anyone they didnt have a life for posting on a forum..............

[Unknown Target]

Neither I nor Grug condemmed you, and neither of us dwelled on it. We both made a comment on it and then (well, me more than him ) proceeded to say something pertaining to the conversation

[Grug]

Don't assume people don't have lives just because they visit an online forum. As you yourself even appear to do. This I aquaint with snobbishness.

WTF I wasnt saying anyone needs to get a life because they are posting on a forum. I was saying to get a real girl with that $10 and look at real boobs instead of wasting it on a game so they can look at "juggly simulation" in a video game............

and to both of you harping on the maturity thing, a mature person wouldnt jump the gun, condemn me for what I said, and dwell on the subject............especially since I never told anyone they didnt have a life for posting on a forum..............

Sorry but your comment did seem to incinuate what I mentioned. My apologies.
I would agree with you then, that people who would buy a game for seeing animated partially nude girls or otherwise do need to spend a bit more time out doors.

*Jabs UT*

As for your question UT, a computer has an OS to worry about. With consoles, every bit is being used for the game. Makes for much more efficient programming. (in that sense anyway)

[Unknown Target]

Ahhh...well, then, it'd be neat if someone made an OS that shut everything down except like it's core and the game...and then just ran the two of them, the core in the background.
Or is that somewhere and where can I get it if it is?

[deftonesmx17]

Sorry but your comment did seem to incinuate what I mentioned. My apologies.
I would agree with you then, that people who would buy a game for seeing animated partially nude girls or otherwise do need to spend a bit more time out doors.

Thank you and I am glad, now that we are on the same level, that you agree with me

[Grug]

Sorry but your comment did seem to incinuate what I mentioned. My apologies.
I would agree with you then, that people who would buy a game for seeing animated partially nude girls or otherwise do need to spend a bit more time out doors.

Thank you and I am glad, now that we are on the same level, that you agree with me

*hugs deftonesmx17*

Ahhh...well, then, it'd be neat if someone made an OS that shut everything down except like it's core and the game...and then just ran the two of them, the core in the background.
Or is that somewhere and where can I get it if it is?

You can do it to an extent in windows, if you killed all background apps and services, including explorer, you minimise the amount of other applications that soak up power.

The problem is that OS's are designed around how to handle certain memory allocations and the like at the lowest level. Hence games on PC are designed around how to apply via the OS, hence why different versions of a game are required per OS.

Linux supposedly gets more out of a system when running a game. Presumably because it isn't as much as a hog as Windows. But if you have the hardware these days it doesn't matter altogether that much.
Though there are ways of helping the problem. I followed a windows tweak guide that makes some very good recommendations, others he leaves to personal opinion.
http://www.tweakguides.com/TGTC.html

I'd strongly recommend it to everyone running windows.
I've got my booting processes down to under 30 processes in Task Manager, and boot memory usage around 120mb iirc.
Did you know for example, that ATI's catalyst drivers take up 40mb of RAM from boot up? 40mb!
Luckily this guy shows a way how to solve that problem, along with a few other services and such you don't need.

I have a much healthier system running now that I took some of his advice.

[Deepblue]

I think this sums up my opinion quite well

Iwata pledges to keep Revolution game prices down
[q]Software prices for Nintendo's Revolution console will buck the trend of next-generation titles being priced more expensively than their current-gen counterparts, with Nintendo boss Satoru Iwata expecting to keep prices below $50.
...
While Nintendo's resistance to price inflation is unlikely to endear it to the publishers currently pushing for the industry's baseline software price to rise, Iwata's stance is at least partially justified by the company's commitment to keeping development costs down - with the Revolution being cited as by far the cheapest next-gen system to create titles for, thanks to mature hardware and development tools enabled by a specification only a few times more powerful than existing platforms.[/q]

FYI, Microsoft ALREADY does this. All MGS games are $49.99. So that's a moot point. I can guarantee you that 3rd party Revolution games will still be $59.99.

[Grug]

Your name wasn't inspired by that horrid movie was it DB?

All games are overpriced IMO. They should be free. So should the consoles. Microsoft should pay the devs, and microsoft can just live off its high of knowing how much pain they are causing the world.

[Deepblue]

Deepblue = IBM chessmaster.

The horrible movie came after.

[Grug]

LoL. I see.

[Ford Prefect]

[flamebait]Why exactly does Nintendo need graphics anyway? They make retarded cartoony games for 9-year-olds.[/flamebait]

[Grug]

[flamebait]Why exactly does Nintendo need graphics anyway? They make retarded cartoony games for 9-year-olds.[/flamebait]

LoL. *uses patented Arnold Swarzenneger flame thrower on Ford Prefect*

Oh, c'mon. That's why we love em so much. They can still make those games fun! ^.^
Zelda is pretty darn good, and not so childish.

[Turnsky]

I know games are fun, but good graphics contribute to the overall greatness of a game.

that hasta be the single most shallow statement i have ever laid eyes upon.  purdy graphics does not a great game make.

Look at Pariah, purdy graphics, but in all reality, it's nothing more than an expensive unreal tourney mod.
Graphics do not change the core fundamentals of what a game is made up of, look at doom 3, for instance, it had a reasonably nice graphics engine, but at the end of the day, it was a pretty generic 1st person shooter at its core, same with Half life 2. Call of duty 2 is a good example of a game trying not to be too generic, it had -great- sound, from the bullets whizzing by, to arty shells, and the voices of allied and axis soldiers barking orders at each other.
 DX2, nice graphics, but poor system optomisation and otherwise ruining the entire game by making it console-centric, it, as a result, it's interface was awful, and it had no real depth at all.
system shock 2, horrid bloody graphics, but great overall depth and plot, and made this game a keeper by most people's standards.
Ghost Recon: advanced warfighter, nice game, nice story, pretty damn good for a console game.

Graphics do NOT give a game what it needs the most, Depth, and Innovation.  Nintendo are famous for being innovative, after all, what good is a top of the line graphics engine, with all the bells and whistles, when all the game turns out to be is gold coated ****, purdy to look at, but it stinks, and it's still **** nontheless.

no offense, DB, but you sound like the kid who's distracted by things because they're "Shiny"

[StratComm]

Windwaker notwithstanding

[Ford Prefect]

I agree with Deepblue, in a way. Video/computer games are a vapid form of entertainment (that I happen to enjoy, so don't pounce on me) and I play them for superficial satisfaction. It seems like everyone treats video games as though it's the art of tasting fine wine, with all these intricacies to take into consideration in making an educated judgement, and to me that's just bull****. I want to blow **** up as realistically as possible, and if it doesn't look pretty, I'm probably not interested. If I want depth, I'll go watch a good film.

[YodaSean]

That just doesn't seem like enough RAM to me.  I don't do much programming, but it seems like you're going to need like 10-20 MB just for the frame buffer(or whatever it's called) at low resolutions.  And then you've got to worry about pretty textures and things.  So they might be left with 40-60 MB for the actual game.  It just doesn't seem like very much for a more complex type of game, like if you want to run complicated AI, very large levels, large multiplayer, your game is going to end up looking like GTA(graphically).

[Deepblue]

I know games are fun, but good graphics contribute to the overall greatness of a game.

that hasta be the single most shallow statement i have ever laid eyes upon. purdy graphics does not a great game make.

Look at Pariah, purdy graphics, but in all reality, it's nothing more than an expensive unreal tourney mod.
Graphics do not change the core fundamentals of what a game is made up of, look at doom 3, for instance, it had a reasonably nice graphics engine, but at the end of the day, it was a pretty generic 1st person shooter at its core, same with Half life 2. Call of duty 2 is a good example of a game trying not to be too generic, it had -great- sound, from the bullets whizzing by, to arty shells, and the voices of allied and axis soldiers barking orders at each other.
 DX2, nice graphics, but poor system optomisation and otherwise ruining the entire game by making it console-centric, it, as a result, it's interface was awful, and it had no real depth at all.
system shock 2, horrid bloody graphics, but great overall depth and plot, and made this game a keeper by most people's standards.
Ghost Recon: advanced warfighter, nice game, nice story, pretty damn good for a console game.

Graphics do NOT give a game what it needs the most, Depth, and Innovation. Nintendo are famous for being innovative, after all, what good is a top of the line graphics engine, with all the bells and whistles, when all the game turns out to be is gold coated ****, purdy to look at, but it stinks, and it's still **** nontheless.

no offense, DB, but you sound like the kid who's distracted by things because they're "Shiny"

You miss the part where I said "contributes" a game with great gameplay and crap graphics is still a great game. A game with great gameplay and great graphics is better.

In Pariah's case, the game had nice graphics but absolutely crap everything.

What makes a game good:

Gameplay
Graphics
Sound
Value

[Charismatic]

[flamebait]Why exactly does Nintendo need graphics anyway? They make retarded cartoony games for 9-year-olds.[/flamebait]

LoL. *uses patented Arnold Swarzenneger flame thrower on Ford Prefect*

Oh, c'mon. That's why we love em so much. They can still make those games fun! ^.^
Zelda is pretty darn good, and not so childish.

If i had time and was not as busy, i would quote about 10 things from this thread. Funny stuff.
V for Nintendo! *waves flag*
But, my quote here was about this:
ZELDA ROX MY SOX! PH34R Z3LD4, 4nD L1NK! Rarr!

(Yeah im mature. Seriously. Don't you belevie me?