The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
With the exception of a few First Peerson Perspective games which ,have been released on consoles, only a few have succeeded.
Will the latest offerings like Quake III or Unreal Tournament be at least half as good as the same games on the PC?
Dreamcast IGN had a play test of the mother of all FPS games Quake III. The were more interested with the online capability of the console which, as we all no, is the most important part of the future of gaming. The newly released broadband modem was used to pit the two best FPS gamers against each other.
They were impressed with the graphical detail of the game, claiming it wasn't far from the quality seen on the PC (i will have to judge that for myself). All this visual eye candy was being displayed at a constant 30 frames per second, even over the internet.
This is where the problem lies....frames per second. To make the game playable in a frantic deathmatch the FPS has to be as high as possible and not drop too low, otherwise you could be killed by a person before you see them. 30 FPS is very respectable for a console but i would be a bit concerned about playing it at that low rate. I play that game on my PC and get between 90 and 180 FPS, depending on resolution and detail settings. At those framerates the game run very smoothly. If i up the resolution to 1600x1200 the framerate drops to around 30. At that speed the game can get a bit jittery.
It's not just the DC which sufers from this. Apparently the framerate on Unreal Tournament played on the mighty PS2 drops to 15 when there is a lot of action.
We will have to wait and see whether the current level of console can effectively play Firt person persective games.
Will the latest offerings like Quake III or Unreal Tournament be at least half as good as the same games on the PC?
Dreamcast IGN had a play test of the mother of all FPS games Quake III. The were more interested with the online capability of the console which, as we all no, is the most important part of the future of gaming. The newly released broadband modem was used to pit the two best FPS gamers against each other.
They were impressed with the graphical detail of the game, claiming it wasn't far from the quality seen on the PC (i will have to judge that for myself). All this visual eye candy was being displayed at a constant 30 frames per second, even over the internet.
This is where the problem lies....frames per second. To make the game playable in a frantic deathmatch the FPS has to be as high as possible and not drop too low, otherwise you could be killed by a person before you see them. 30 FPS is very respectable for a console but i would be a bit concerned about playing it at that low rate. I play that game on my PC and get between 90 and 180 FPS, depending on resolution and detail settings. At those framerates the game run very smoothly. If i up the resolution to 1600x1200 the framerate drops to around 30. At that speed the game can get a bit jittery.
It's not just the DC which sufers from this. Apparently the framerate on Unreal Tournament played on the mighty PS2 drops to 15 when there is a lot of action.
We will have to wait and see whether the current level of console can effectively play Firt person persective games.
Page:
With the exception of a few First Peerson Perspective games which ,have been released on consoles, only a few have succeeded.
Will the latest offerings like Quake III or Unreal Tournament be at least half as good as the same games on the PC?
Dreamcast IGN had a play test of the mother of all FPS games Quake III. The were more interested with the online capability of the console which, as we all no, is the most important part of the future of gaming. The newly released broadband modem was used to pit the two best FPS gamers against each other.
They were impressed with the graphical detail of the game, claiming it wasn't far from the quality seen on the PC (i will have to judge that for myself). All this visual eye candy was being displayed at a constant 30 frames per second, even over the internet.
This is where the problem lies....frames per second. To make the game playable in a frantic deathmatch the FPS has to be as high as possible and not drop too low, otherwise you could be killed by a person before you see them. 30 FPS is very respectable for a console but i would be a bit concerned about playing it at that low rate. I play that game on my PC and get between 90 and 180 FPS, depending on resolution and detail settings. At those framerates the game run very smoothly. If i up the resolution to 1600x1200 the framerate drops to around 30. At that speed the game can get a bit jittery.
It's not just the DC which sufers from this. Apparently the framerate on Unreal Tournament played on the mighty PS2 drops to 15 when there is a lot of action.
We will have to wait and see whether the current level of console can effectively play Firt person persective games.
Will the latest offerings like Quake III or Unreal Tournament be at least half as good as the same games on the PC?
Dreamcast IGN had a play test of the mother of all FPS games Quake III. The were more interested with the online capability of the console which, as we all no, is the most important part of the future of gaming. The newly released broadband modem was used to pit the two best FPS gamers against each other.
They were impressed with the graphical detail of the game, claiming it wasn't far from the quality seen on the PC (i will have to judge that for myself). All this visual eye candy was being displayed at a constant 30 frames per second, even over the internet.
This is where the problem lies....frames per second. To make the game playable in a frantic deathmatch the FPS has to be as high as possible and not drop too low, otherwise you could be killed by a person before you see them. 30 FPS is very respectable for a console but i would be a bit concerned about playing it at that low rate. I play that game on my PC and get between 90 and 180 FPS, depending on resolution and detail settings. At those framerates the game run very smoothly. If i up the resolution to 1600x1200 the framerate drops to around 30. At that speed the game can get a bit jittery.
It's not just the DC which sufers from this. Apparently the framerate on Unreal Tournament played on the mighty PS2 drops to 15 when there is a lot of action.
We will have to wait and see whether the current level of console can effectively play Firt person persective games.
Perhaps a way around this is to program graphics so that they are not displayed in frames at all, remember how we moved from comic strips to movies in one giant leap? Perhaps we can move from frames to er....I'm not that good at programming, so I'll leave that one to the boffins, perhaps the new Flash type software for webpage design may hold a solution?
What? Did I miss something? Don't they use frames or something? I'm an ignorant dummy when it comes to frame technology, so if you know the alternative, let me know, but use small words so I can understand.
How much did you spend on your PC tcook5?
£1000? £2000? Anyway, as long as internet play suffers from lag, Perfect Dark and Turok are going to be the best multiplayer First Person Shooters.
Besides, 30FPS is fine as long as it doesn't go below that in the middle of a gun fight!
£1000? £2000? Anyway, as long as internet play suffers from lag, Perfect Dark and Turok are going to be the best multiplayer First Person Shooters.
Besides, 30FPS is fine as long as it doesn't go below that in the middle of a gun fight!
Now look cook. If you think about it the N64 is 64 bit, Pc's are way more powerful than them, look at quake 3!
It runs smoothly, and it looks great, but compared to Perfect Dark, there's no way it can compare with it.
Why? Cos' i say so! It runs as dan said 30 frames per seconds, plus it's got split screen mulitplayer mode, powerful explosive guns, could you expect it to run so smoothly like Quake 3!
RARE have done a super job balancing the graphics, so the framerate increases, not only they made it and Goldeneye look good was that it was on a 64 bit console!
It runs smoothly, and it looks great, but compared to Perfect Dark, there's no way it can compare with it.
Why? Cos' i say so! It runs as dan said 30 frames per seconds, plus it's got split screen mulitplayer mode, powerful explosive guns, could you expect it to run so smoothly like Quake 3!
RARE have done a super job balancing the graphics, so the framerate increases, not only they made it and Goldeneye look good was that it was on a 64 bit console!
And when RARE have 256 bit to play with...
(I think the Gamecube will be that powerful)
(I think the Gamecube will be that powerful)
The processor, is 64 bit, rather intrigingly. But, the graphics processor called Flipper, that handles, suprisingly, all the graphics, is at LEAST 512 bit. Probably double that.
I hate all PC FPSs! ever since I last played Doom I decided never to play another PC FPS again, it makes me sad when I see them reviewed, the graphics and gameplay is nothing compared to Sony and Nintendo games! my head would explode at this time, but it is unhuman and almost impossible, but then, nothings impossible if you set your mind to it, and I don't think my mind is set to killing it's self right now. damn, I went round in a circle there, just like a dog trying to bite his own tale. HA HA I laugh at myself!!
I think one thing that Nintendo have done wrong with multiplayer games such as Goldeneye and Perfect Dark is the fact that they are split screen. Of course this is still fun but it takes away a certain element that makes FPS multiplayers so good.
I remember when i played Doom on the PS with my cousin. Because it was a link up and we had our own screens, it added that extra tension to the game because we didn't know where eachother was. It was also nice having the whole screen to look at instead of a small box in the top or bottom corner. Obviously not everyone can afford to have this kind of set up in their house with multiple screens and consoles, but there should be more of an option for link ups as well as split screen so players can have a much better experience of an FPS multiplayer. As for consoles comparisons to PC's, console companies need to try and improve their online network more because in terms of numbers of players, consoles cannot compare to PC's. Its all fun having like 4 players online, but it must be even better when you can have teams of something like 10 aside in a capture the flag game !
PC's tend to be superior in graphics too on these games. The only way consoles ever improve on the graphics is because they release the title like 2 years later when lets face it, its had plenty of time to try and improve on them.
When Doom arrived on the PS the mags were like "PS owners get improvements like better shadowing on the levels !". At the end of the day, these are basic improvements, the game had already been around on PC's for ages and while we all sat back and drooled over the option of a 2 player link up, PC owners were enjoying 10 player networks.
FPS's can work on consoles, but to really get the full enjoyment out of the multiplayer option of them, there needs to be an improvement on the network for online play and less split screen play.
Split screen is all well and good, but games such as Goldeneye never gave me the same atmosphere as Doom did because it gives too much away when you can just look at where your opponents are at any time.
I remember when i played Doom on the PS with my cousin. Because it was a link up and we had our own screens, it added that extra tension to the game because we didn't know where eachother was. It was also nice having the whole screen to look at instead of a small box in the top or bottom corner. Obviously not everyone can afford to have this kind of set up in their house with multiple screens and consoles, but there should be more of an option for link ups as well as split screen so players can have a much better experience of an FPS multiplayer. As for consoles comparisons to PC's, console companies need to try and improve their online network more because in terms of numbers of players, consoles cannot compare to PC's. Its all fun having like 4 players online, but it must be even better when you can have teams of something like 10 aside in a capture the flag game !
PC's tend to be superior in graphics too on these games. The only way consoles ever improve on the graphics is because they release the title like 2 years later when lets face it, its had plenty of time to try and improve on them.
When Doom arrived on the PS the mags were like "PS owners get improvements like better shadowing on the levels !". At the end of the day, these are basic improvements, the game had already been around on PC's for ages and while we all sat back and drooled over the option of a 2 player link up, PC owners were enjoying 10 player networks.
FPS's can work on consoles, but to really get the full enjoyment out of the multiplayer option of them, there needs to be an improvement on the network for online play and less split screen play.
Split screen is all well and good, but games such as Goldeneye never gave me the same atmosphere as Doom did because it gives too much away when you can just look at where your opponents are at any time.
Page: