[usman]

It sould be out by now http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Info.aspx?pId=4395

Anyone have any news ?

[undeaf]

Video Card: 128 MB DirectX® 9.0c-compliant AGP or PCI Express graphics card (256 or higher for High Graphics Detail support)

Whoa, for a gamecube port? I wonder if that's realistic or if it just says that because of the conventional way of dumbing down the requirements description by using specs that used to be meaningful half a decade ago.

[usman]

I believe PC port provide better and more crisp graphics.

[undeaf]

Considering that a gamecube has less than 64 megs of total memory, I don't see why the PC version couldn't look better and run better even with just a 64 meg geforce 4 ti.

[insane_cobra]

It's probably just a cheap, unoptimized port.

Halo sometimes stutters even on my PC, for instance (Celeron 2.4 GHz, 512 MB DDR2, GeForce 6600GT 128 MB).

[Orange Brat]

Console hardware is optimized for what it is intended to do. It takes more power for a PC to do the same thing depending on the game, so the higher specs shouldn't be a surprise. Creating a game for a console is not the same as on a PC.

[undeaf]

Originally Posted by Orange Brat

Console hardware is optimized for what it is intended to do. It takes more power for a PC to do the same thing depending on the game, so the higher specs shouldn't be a surprise. Creating a game for a console is not the same as on a PC.

Sounds like a myth. Ever since the gamecube, all the consoles are using powerpc or x86 cpus, and what else would video cards be optimized for(or even cpus)? The xbox did have something roughly equivalent to nforce audio, but that makes a very small difference. And the presence of a hard drive, and 7200 rpm one, should only help.

[usman]

but when it is comming out for PC.......... ?

[Fop]

It's the weight of all the background software and heavy operating systems that slow the PC down. Probably the biggest thing is that PCs are so varied, but consoles are all the same, which makes it easier to optimize code for a certain system.

[Solid Snake]

The game is ported from Ps2 not from Gamecube.

[Fop]

Why would the port the PS2 port of a Gamecube game to the PC? Would seem to make more sense to port the original, especially since the GC version has a bit better textures and such.

[Solid Snake]

Ps2 version has more extras.

[Kolzig]

Yeah, but it's a plays much worse on PS2, bad framerate and also worse graphics, if that means anything to you. Or so I have heard anyway...

[Orange Brat]

Originally Posted by undeaf

Sounds like a myth. Ever since the gamecube, all the consoles are using powerpc or x86 cpus, and what else would video cards be optimized for(or even cpus)? The xbox did have something roughly equivalent to nforce audio, but that makes a very small difference. And the presence of a hard drive, and 7200 rpm one, should only help.

It's not a myth, it's simply a matter of optimization. Consoles are built from the ground up for only one thing, games and/or graphics, and PCs are not. Faster graphics cards make them more graphics/games friendly, but in the end it's still not the same as optimized hardware. That's why a console can display a complicated scene more smoothly with a fraction of the memory and speed as a top of the line PC.

[undeaf]

They must be basing it on the PS2 version because it's at least somewhat multithreaded already. They'll probably just redo most of the textures, or take those out of the gamecube version, or perhaps there is original material which was compressed down for all the versions.

Just because it plays badly on a PS2, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that version of the game, it is after all running on just a pair of 150 mhz chips.

[undeaf]

PC's are not optimized for games? What are you using, a VIA cpu, and a matrox graphics card?

[CrimsonBlue]

It's not how much power or memory you have, it's how you use it. And that's the difference between pc and consoles. Developers spend years on working on the same hardware, whivh obviously makes it more optimized eventually. That's why the games look better and better on consoles, even though hardware doesn't change. PCs change all the time, and it's never set in stone. Almost every pc in the entire world is different from eachother, and the are made from components. Individual components. The problem with PCs is they're all made using with the latest technology in mind, thus very often resulting in badly optimized games. If PCs were updated only every five years or so, and they all had the same hardware, games would look a lot better on PCs than they do now. The truth is, a lot of the games with high requirements today could work just as well on older hardware, if they only took the time to optimize it. I'm a bigger fan of custom hardware than the individual component hardware that pcs are build of. That's the main reason the PC took so long to catch up with Amigas back in the eighties, early nineties. The Amiga was custom based, and was basically the same hardware from 1985 to 1992 or so, and thus the developers really got to know all the little tricks that the amiga could do, and they knew it would work on all the amigas. The games really took advantage of the hardware, and because of that the PCs lagged behind until they went 3D. If PCs hadn't been updated every year, they would've been able to master the hardware and the difference between amigas and pcs would be a lot less.

PCs are basically overpowered, underdeveloped and non-optimized hardware.

[samIamsad]

Re: Amiga vs PC.

Don't forget: The graphics cards and sound capabilities of the PCs of that era outright SUCKED. That's right, there's no denying. Pretty much mindboggling that Commodore released such a machine during the middle of the 80s, when I and many others were still playing with their sort of cool 8-bitters.

Still, ironically the Amiga's fucking awesome multimedia capabilities* arguably helped to broke its neck. The system was said to be a kid's computer for playing games and stuff. Even before its release, I think. That's also one of the reasons why it never gained much ground in other areas than home computing.


*Unlike most shoddy Adlib, Soundblaster or good heavens, PC beeper sound I still get TEH KICKS out of Amiga sound even today. Yes, it's that awesome.

[CrimsonBlue]

Yeah, the Amiga was extreme in terms of achievement considering the time of release. It's also a shame that it was only marketed as a kids toy, just like the C64. This alone, however, wasn't the only thing to screw up the future. Commodore left the Amiga working on its own. They completely ignored the Amiga by the time the PC started gaining ground, and thus eventually was left in the dust, thanks to the transition to 3D cards, CD-ROMS and harddrives being a standard in PCs. If they had made the transition around the same time, as well as properly market the Amiga as a home computer and not an advanced console, then maybe we would've been playing games on a modern amiga instead of crappy windows pcs.

Also, I'm really looking forward to the day when PCs and Consoles are one, like they're turning out to be. I'm willing to buy two consoles in the future, one to replace my overpriced PC, and one for pure console gaming action, that doesn't really require any addition input like keyboards. We're actually starting to get to the point where the Amiga was, a custom based, super efficient home computers. I'm really looking forward to the day when I can toss my PC out the window, and have a nice looking console standing beside my monitor.

In short, Amiga was an advanced console with the same features a PC had, including keyboard and mouse. And now we're getting there, but we should've been there a long time ago.

[usman]

Still the original querry is unanswered, anyone have any info about PC release ?