Political Crossfire Forums

PricklySponge · Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 8687

FCTE wrote: PricklySponge wrote: ubuntu is his primary operating system, I believe.

Tis true. A great deal of games run natively on Linux like UT2004, Quake, Doom, and Neverwinter Nights. Other games like Steam based games and WoW can run on Cedega or Wine. On average they run faster and more stable in Linux.

My Windows partition is for programs and games that are too troublesome like the EVE client and Rosetta Stone which requires Shockwave which has not been hacked/recompiled for Linux yet.
I've only ever heard that steam based games ran much slower on wine or cedega. :think:

FCTE · Joined: 11 Mar 2004 Posts: 18697 Location: Illinois

PricklySponge wrote: I've only ever heard that steam based games ran much slower on wine or cedega. :think:

Never had a problem with speed, the boot/load times were much faster than Windows.

I did have trees stuck to combine vehicles at some points in HL2 though. :lol:

PricklySponge · Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 8687

FCTE wrote: PricklySponge wrote: I've only ever heard that steam based games ran much slower on wine or cedega. :think:

Never had a problem with speed, the boot/load times were much faster than Windows.

I did have trees stuck to combine vehicles at some points in HL2 though. :lol: :lol: camouflage.

were you using cedega or wine to run HL2?

FCTE · Joined: 11 Mar 2004 Posts: 18697 Location: Illinois

PricklySponge wrote: :lol: camouflage.

were you using cedega or wine to run HL2?

Cedega, which is basically a ripoff of Wine, but it does work better as far as games.

PricklySponge · Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 8687

FCTE wrote: PricklySponge wrote: :lol: camouflage.

were you using cedega or wine to run HL2?

Cedega, which is basically a ripoff of Wine, but it does work better as far as games. I know. I intend to try it eventually. 5 bucks a month isnt too bad.

FCTE · Joined: 11 Mar 2004 Posts: 18697 Location: Illinois

PricklySponge wrote: I know. I intend to try it eventually. 5 bucks a month isnt too bad.

If you're dual booting I recommend just using Windows. It's got better mic support, you already paid for it, and Cedega takes some major tweaking at times and is a PITA. $5 a month adds up and many people hate them for not sticking to the open source philosophy. What you can do to play with it and try it out: just pay once for it, download it and update it, and then cancel. You just don't get anymore updates after a month.

PricklySponge · Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 8687

FCTE wrote: PricklySponge wrote: I know. I intend to try it eventually. 5 bucks a month isnt too bad.

If you're dual booting I recommend just using Windows. It's got better mic support, you already paid for it, and Cedega takes some major tweaking at times and is a PITA. $5 a month adds up and many people hate them for not sticking to the open source philosophy. What you can do to play with it and try it out: just pay once for it, download it and update it, and then cancel. You just don't get anymore updates after a month.

Once I set up a duel boot I will use windows to play games. But it still may be interesting to tinker around with in ubuntu.

FCTE · Joined: 11 Mar 2004 Posts: 18697 Location: Illinois

PricklySponge wrote: Once I set up a duel boot I will use windows to play games. But it still may be interesting to tinker around with in ubuntu.

That's why I got it. I quit gaming for like a year and then after I got comfortable with Ubuntu and made a 100% switch over from Windows I got game fever and wanted to play HL2 and UT2004 so I used Cedega then. It's fun to play with and see Windows games on a Linux OS.

PricklySponge · Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 8687

FCTE wrote: PricklySponge wrote: Once I set up a duel boot I will use windows to play games. But it still may be interesting to tinker around with in ubuntu.

That's why I got it. I quit gaming for like a year and then after I got comfortable with Ubuntu and made a 100% switch over from Windows I got game fever and wanted to play HL2 and UT2004 so I used Cedega then. It's fun to play with and see Windows games on a Linux OS. Yeah, it'd just be something interesting to do. I would have attemped it by now, but theres not allot of gaming potential for a $250 emachine :wink: :-|

wolfgang · Joined: 12 Nov 2006 Posts: 36

So we can all agree that FCTE runs Windows sometimes (and could boot into Windows when his 360 was on if he had one).

I am also surprised that everyone wants to jump on me for stating that he runs Windows. Which yeah he does, though not 100% of the time.

And for the record I use OS X 80% of the time. That makes me even cooler. :-D

Instead you ignore all the false statements he made.

360 does not require an add-on to watch DVD movies
360 will allow anyone to make games for the 360 via XNA
360 does have more multimedia options than the PS3
360 has more exclusives than the PS3
360 is not much if any weaker than the PS3. PS3 does have more CPU power, but the RAM setup, lack of L2 cache and the Cell is not designed for gaming make the processing power not a huge plus.

kthxbye.

Protostar · Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject:

I think we should stop arguing which system is more powerful, as that means nothing. What matters is the quality of the games on the console and each particular gamer's likes/dislikes gaming wise. Personally I lean toward the PS3 because of GT5 and thats about it atm. Until that comes out I have no reason to buy one. The 360 doens't interest me as I've never been a fan of FPS genre games on a console. IMO, there are some genres at are better on the PC and some that are better on the console. Console/OS wars are idiotic as you use what pleases/works for you. Linux is not better than Windows. The PS3 is not better than the 360. etc, etc.

BTW, TGND's a mod again? Guess she couldn't stand putting the whip down for too long. :lol:

Josh · Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 5931 Location: Across America

I'm going to hire some Chinese immigrants to stand in line and purchase one and then I'm going to scalp them on Ebay.

Vexillum · Joined: 12 Nov 2006 Posts: 466

Venom wrote: Call of Duty 2 on the 360 was given a 9.0 from IGN... Resistance got 9.1... that's not quite a "killer game".
GRAW was given a 9.2 from IGN. A higher score.

The average CoD2 is 85%. Both Gears and Resistance broke the 90% level at Game Rankings. They get 'A's CoD2 gets only a 'B'.

I have little doubt that when we see the same game on both systems, the PS3 version will be a little better. But, we'll wait and see.

Quote: An incorrect statement... why? Because the PS 3 does not come with HD cables out of the box.. so (no high-definition games or movies!).

The HDMI cables are only needed for encrypted output. No blu-ray movie yet uses this level of encryption nor is expected to for several years. (in a few years, they'll be commodities where you can get an off-brand cable real cheap).

Quote: While I agree that the 360 Core is not worth buying, it is not a "crippled" machine compared to the Premium. The difference is a wired versus wireless controller, lack of HD, and component cables.

That lack of a HD is a huge shortcoming. It kills backwards compatibility, degrades performance of some 360 games, and kills the 360 download video service.

As pure game systems, the 360 appears to be a better value. But, the fact is, HDTV is getting common and some of us would like to watch movies at HD resolution. This makes the PS3 a much better value, considering the price of stand-alone HD-players.

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Quote: I have little doubt that when we see the same game on both systems, the PS3 version will be a little better. But, we'll wait and see.
Well as of now the titles that are 360/PS 3 coming out together you cannot tell a difference. Such as Assassin's Creed.

Quote: The HDMI cables are only needed for encrypted output. No blu-ray movie yet uses this level of encryption nor is expected to for several years. (in a few years, they'll be commodities where you can get an off-brand cable real cheap).
Thats fine, however you do not need HDMI for High Def. The PS 3 does not come with component cables, it cannot do High Def out of the box. You will have to buy component cables, or an HDMI cable for added cost to a newly purchased PS 3. Component cables for the PS 3 run around $30.

Quote: That lack of a HD is a huge shortcoming. It kills backwards compatibility, degrades performance of some 360 games, and kills the 360 download video service.
I assume your talking about the Core not coming with component cables. Yes that does make the graphics worse and of course HD video looks better than non HD video. Now the Premium does not share this short coming. However both versions of the PS 3 do have this huge shortcoming as their lack of boxed in component cables or HDMI means degraded graphics, and killing any downloaded videos. Of course the games that do work on the 360 from the Xbox do come in HD.
As for their backwards compatability apparently these games become distorted on many new HDTVs that tend to strech them. Also no PS 2 game will be in HD, they have already stated this (along that they will not have 100% backwards compatability).
Quote: In response to these issues, Sony's PR department pointed out that it, from the start, expected backwards compatibility to be less than 100%. It was also good enough to point out that some people can put up with playing games that lack sound.
Source

Quote: As pure game systems, the 360 appears to be a better value. But, the fact is, HDTV is getting common and some of us would like to watch movies at HD resolution. This makes the PS3 a much better value, considering the price of stand-alone HD-players.
I agree that more and more people are getting an HDTV today.
However I disagree with the PS 3 being a much better value for this.
If you buy a Xbox360 Core + HDDVD drive that is $500. Then you pay $40 for component cables. For $540 that is all you need (comes with a remote as well).
If you buy a PS 3 for $500 you still cannot play a movie or even a game in HD. You need to buy component cables which are $50 at Gamestop Source. So now your at $550 and you do not have a remote. A remote you can expect to pay $20-40 for it.
So before you buy a remote to equal the value of a 360+ HD DVD you've already paid more.
Also this is assuming no movie puts in the encryption that requires you to purchase an HDMI cord for your PS3. Gamestop is selling their HDMI PS 3 cable for $80.

wolfgang · Joined: 12 Nov 2006 Posts: 36

Vexillum wrote: I have little doubt that when we see the same game on both systems, the PS3 version will be a little better. But, we'll wait and see.
CoD3 on the 360 already performs and looks better on 360.

Rainbow 6 Vegas is expected to be the same.

The few PS3/360 games that look better on the PS3 than 360 are ones that are not releasing in the same timeframe and have had extra polish. Games being released on both platforms in the same release window are currently looking better on 360.

And they certainly have more features on 360 than PS3 -- chiefly online support.

Vexillum · Joined: 12 Nov 2006 Posts: 466

Venom wrote: The PS 3 does not come with component cables, it cannot do High Def out of the box.

I stand educated.

Quote: Quote: That lack of a HD is a huge shortcoming. It kills backwards compatibility, degrades performance of some 360 games, and kills the 360 download video service.
I assume your talking about the Core not coming with component cables.

I was pointing out why the Xbox 360 core system is too crippled to be considered an option.

Quote: As for their backwards compatability apparently these games become distorted on many new HDTVs that tend to strech them.

Nothing a TV tweak can't fix, at least on my set.

Quote: However I disagree with the PS 3 being a much better value for this.
If you buy a Xbox360 Core + HDDVD drive that is $500.

As I told you, the 360 core is not a viable option. Sure, you can get the HDDVD for the 360, but then you'll have spent about what the PS3 cost. But, you won't be able to use that nice HDDVD with any games. Many high-definition games are going to run very tight in a standard DVD.

Quote: If you buy a PS 3 for $500 you still cannot play a movie or even a game in HD. You need to buy component cables which are $50 at Gamestop [url=http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=802522]

Try $15 for the cables.
http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?cookie%5Ftest=1&product%5Fid=801798

And, I bet a $5 universal remote will work just fine.

Quote: Also this is assuming no movie puts in the encryption that requires you to purchase an HDMI cord for your PS3. Gamestop is selling their HDMI PS 3 cable for $80.

Then you'd need an HDMI cable for any hi-def DVD player, so the cable price is a wash. How about $11 for a HDMI cable?

https://gogocost.secureserverdot.com/xcart/product.php?productid=245&cat=36&page=1

Cables are usually the most over-priced things. So, if you look around, you can find them pretty cheap compared to what most stores sell them for.

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Quote: I was pointing out why the Xbox 360 core system is too crippled to be considered an option.

Ah well don't get me wrong I don't like the Core either, however if I didn't ever plan to hook up my 360 to the internet all I would need is to buy component cables/memory card and save some money compared to the Premium. You don't need large memory reserves for saving games as they are extremely small files, you only need that space to download demos/videos.

Quote: As I told you, the 360 core is not a viable option. Sure, you can get the HDDVD for the 360, but then you'll have spent about what the PS3 cost. But, you won't be able to use that nice HDDVD with any games. Many high-definition games are going to run very tight in a standard DVD.
Sure that can be a problem of requiring two DVDs compared to one Blu-ray. However that has not presented itself at this point and people didn't seem to have any problem.

Quote: Try $15 for the cables.
http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?cookie%5Ftest=1&product%5Fid=80179 8

And, I bet a $5 universal remote will work just fine.
That's a fair reply. However, as you pointed out with games sizes growing larger what about the prospect of Blu-ray requiring HDMI for possibly movies in the near future? That means after you've bought these $15 cables, you'll throw downaround $60 for HDMI cables. $80 if you get them from Gamestop.
As for a remote I cannot say if that would work or not. However I'd atleast want that thrown in since the PS 3 is some epic media centered around it's blu-ray ability... when it doesn't come with the ability for an High Def out of the box or a "remote".

Quote: How about $11 for a HDMI cable?

https://gogocost.secureserverdot.com/xcart/product.php?productid=245&c at=36&page=1

Cables are usually the most over-priced things. So, if you look around, you can find them pretty cheap compared to what most stores sell them for.
Ya I agree cables are a ripoff. However you seem rather ok with being nickle and dimed. Also how fun will it be when Joe Blu buys a PS 3 for his "high def" experience only to find out it won't do it out of the box.
Sure it's going to set him back $11 for these HDMI cables... but he has to order them and wait. Seems like a pretty crappy plan to me.
If Sony will nickel and dime you on the physical parts for their system... what else will they nickel and dime you on?

What's next they don't include a controller or power cables?

Vexillum · Joined: 12 Nov 2006 Posts: 466

Venom wrote: Ya I agree cables are a ripoff. However you seem rather ok with being nickle and dimed. Also how fun will it be when Joe Blu buys a PS 3 for his "high def" experience only to find out it won't do it out of the box.

I think not putting in cables was a bad call by Sony. HDMI cables would probably only added $3 to their total cost of construction, and significantly raised consumer satisfaction.

As for being nickled and dimed, the Xbox 360 on-line service is $50/year while the PS3 online service is free.

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Quote: As for being nickled and dimed, the Xbox 360 on-line service is $50/year while the PS3 online service is free.
Hey you get what you pay for in the case of Xbox Live which is actually $34.98/year.
Source

I'd rather pay about $3 a month for online games that have voice, a unified buddy system, in game invites, private chats, etc than one that isn't unified like Sony.
Everything I have read points to Live! being a superior service at this point. Yes I do think Live! should open up Silver! to gaming, but MS puts a heck of a lot more money into Live! than Sony so I'd glady pay a few dollars for the superior service.
Also some games have scrapped their online play due to lack of assistance from Sony and other developers are not happy with the support.
MS has allowed only EA to attempt their own multiplayer service on live.. and they are finding a large backlash on about this.
Marvel: UA which is selling well, is a PS 3 launch title. On the Xbox 360 and even Xbox you can use your mic to talk to other players in your party. Not over Sony's service.
A game like Gears of War wouldn't work very well over Sony's online service because of how much you use the mic. Looking at raiding in World of Warcraft, every guild I've ever seen required vent or TS. Now for online games on Live! you have a built in system, however this cannot be said for Sony.

Quote: I think not putting in cables was a bad call by Sony. HDMI cables would probably only added $3 to their total cost of construction, and significantly raised consumer satisfaction
I think it would have stopped a lot of complaining, but I think they should have gone with component cables. Not every HDTV has an HDMI port and component cables can worth for either or (like they do on the 360 which has a simple switch on the cables for HD play).
The problem with this added $3 or so cost is that will certainly add up. They are already losing a lot of money just making the PS 3.
That is why MS keeps a 1 year monopoly or something on the Wirless controllers, to make some money back on the loss of the console sale.

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Oh Gamerankings gave COD 2 for the 360 a 90% average not 85.
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/927725.asp?q=Call%20of%20Duty%202

Resistance is ranked the same at 89%
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928399.asp?q=Resistance

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter however recieved a 91% from gamerankings.
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/926971.asp?q=GRAW

Halo 1: 95% on gamerankings Halo 2: 94% Gears of War: 95%

edit: updated with some scores...

It would appear that Resistance is about as killer of an app as COD 2 on the 360 according to reviews.