The Aliens Legacy
http://forum.alienslegacy.com/

ACM PC vs Xbox 360. Holy crap what a difference...
http://forum.alienslegacy.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=12548		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Pepperpete [ Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:  ACM PC vs Xbox 360. Holy crap what a difference...
I picked up both versions of the game. To say the PC version is heads and tails better visually than the 360 version is an understatement. Enough that if I was forced to just play the 360 version I would have been disappointed.

I am not willing to accept chunky and ugly framerates ruining my gameplay on the Xbox360 version. Some of the textures are so bad and washed out that I can't make out what's happening. On the PC version none of this is true. They run at a proper framerate and just look so much more realistic. The more important thing to me is that the game is SMOOTH on the PC vs the terrible choppyness of the 360 version.

If you guys have the choice, go PC.

Attachments:
ACM2.jpg
ACM2.jpg [ 264.04 KiB | Viewed 67961 times ]
ACM.jpg
ACM.jpg [ 292.77 KiB | Viewed 67967 times ]
Author:  Ttaskmaster [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Aye, I hear ya Pete!
Been having this same debate with friends of mine who actually make these games.
I used to think Consoles, with their one and only un-customisable controllers sucked donkey dick. After talking to industry people, my new and more informed opinion: Consoles suck donkey dick, BIG time!!

My PC rig with a really old 775 motherboard running 4gb RAM for a Core 2 Quad at 2.4GHz with a ½gb Radeon 4870 all cost less than my flipping keyboard (I have a Logitech G19), yet can outstrip the performance of the average console... Now imagine what it's be like when I overclock it all the way up to 4.6GHz!!! :D

Most Console games are created for PC to begin with and most Console games are actually created ON a PC. All the devs I know play their games on PC, or laptop at least. Some plug in console-style controllers, but only because that's what they're used to from work.

Consoles are aimed at lazy people who never even change the settings on their smartphone beyond initial setup and just want to plug and play - 18-30 year old males with good jobs and disposable income. PCs are for the discerning geek who wants top performance and isn't afraid to mess around with settings a bit.
Unfortunately, because Consoles have been marketed for the casual gamer (a crappy Zumba fitness game sold more than the bestselling PC game of all time!) there are more Console jocks than there are PC geeks, so Consoles have become the 95-98% standard to which games must aspire, if they want to sell well.

Or, as another friend said, "I don't care about a machine that can fill 100 other functions as well, I just want to play".

In the industry, Consoles are only so much more popular than PC gaming because Consoles have one standard, where PCs have such variance that they are awkward to make for. Also Console manufacturers get a cut from each game sold, so they have quite the controlling and vested interest. The only reason PC games are still so popular is that the development is essentially free (Publisher wants Console, but the dev is on PC so can also be released), so the PC game is a lot cheaper (no goddamn percentage for the Consolers). However, Console companies fear the easy piracy of PC games so don't always release it on that platform anyway and the fact that it's only 2-5% of their total sales is not encouraging.

No offense to anyone here who does prefer a console, for whatever reason... but consoles suck!! :lol:
Author:  MattRendar [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
is there a differnce between the xbox and ps3 ??
Author:  BurntKona [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Here you go, an in-depth analysis of the performance on different platforms:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... s-face-off
Author:  Pug50 [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm the freak that is playing half the time with an Xbox controller plugged into a pretty beefy PC ...

Not sure - I enjoy the experience more with keyboard&mouse but seem to be more effective with the analog sticks on a controller. Go figure; That might be just because the Halo series are the only first-person games that really liked me other than Portal.

My PC is running it at buttery fps at 1900x1200. Many of the textures were possibly made 5 years ago at the resolution typical for that time, but some of the lighting effects (particularly on the Aliens and other slimy surfaces) look really nice to my eyes.
Author:  Spatman [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm playing on the PS3 and I'm very happy with the visuals. Looks like I made the right choice skipping the 360 version!
Author:  Ttaskmaster [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Never got on with controllers. They just don't fit my hands and I get bad strain after a very short time.
I also find FPS and just about anything that requires a moving camera to be more precise with M&KB setups. I think it's because analogue sticks and D-Pads have to be held for a certain amount of time to move the crosshairs, while you just whizz a mouse the relevant distance to the point of aim you need. It's more intuitive and more like moving a real weapon to me.
Author:  88reaper88 [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I wish I could afford a decent PC...
Author:  Pepperpete [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
88reaper88 wrote:
I wish I could afford a decent PC...


You can easily build a quality gaming rig for about $500 bucks now. The PS3 when it first came out was more than that. With STEAM for game distribution PC kicks the consoles asses now.

Spat if you could see live the difference between the PS3 and the PC version, you would be downright shocked. The extra details and little things shine through.
Author:  Outcry27 [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
This actually doesn't surprise me. The hardware in the 360 is starting to get dated, now, so it wouldn't surprise me if they had to downsample the textures and shaders in order for the 360 to be able to maintain a decent framerate.

I had noticed that my copy didn't look quite as snazzy as what I had seen at the promo events, and I wondered if it was just an Xbox thing. Nice to see that confirmed.
Author:  Spatman [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
I watched the video that compared the PS3 and PC versions, and I didn't really see a lot of difference. A little bit here and there, but not enough to make me regret my choice.
Author:  88reaper88 [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
PepperPete: £4 in the bank and no job :(
I'm slowly upgrading my ancient PC but it'll be a while before I can run any game game made after 2006! ;)
Author:  PVB [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Pepperpete wrote:
Spat if you could see live the difference between the PS3 and the PC version, you would be downright shocked. The extra details and little things shine through.

Why would we be shocked?

The PS3 and Xbox 360 came out nearly 8 years ago. PC specs are constantly updating/improving.

My PC is 7 years old and can almost produce better looking visuals than my 360 (although the frame rate suffers due to the slow cpu).

My current PC monitor is 19" and does a max res of 1280x1080. It sits on a standard compter desk and has an office style chair in front of it.

My 360 sits next to my 32" LCD TV and I have an armchair in front of it.

I will always prefer playing games on my TV/console.
Author:  Pepperpete [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Spatman wrote:
I watched the video that compared the PS3 and PC versions, and I didn't really see a lot of difference. A little bit here and there, but not enough to make me regret my choice.


That's why I said "Live". I watched the vids as well and wasn't all that impressed. But 99 percent of the vids to do the comparison dropped the resolution down to match the 360/PS3 so that it could be a direct comparison.

Now take the same game, ramp up ALL the effects and options to max (2060 X 1200 rez versus 1280x 720), turn on the enhanced textures and depth. Turn on the enhanced lighting effects.

And most important...the 360 and PS3 are locked at 30 frames per second. The PC version can do 120 frames per second making the motion and visuals buttery smooth. This makes a HUGE difference to the gameplay and visuals. Long story short it's the difference between a Kia and a Porsche in the performance department.

Seriously a youtube video will never demonstrate it. I wish you could come check it out.
Author:  SGM Baldwin [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ACM PC vs Xbox 360. Holy crap what a difference...
Quote:
It's difficult to recommend any version of this game - even after its extended period of development it still looks unfinished and is packed with bugs.
Is this a good thing o a bad thing?
Author:  Outcry27 [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
I had already planned to get a copy on Xbox AND PC, lol. If anything it just confirms that.
Author:  Pepperpete [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
PVB wrote:
Pepperpete wrote:
Spat if you could see live the difference between the PS3 and the PC version, you would be downright shocked. The extra details and little things shine through.

Why would we be shocked?

The PS3 and Xbox 360 came out nearly 8 years ago. PC specs are constantly updating/improving.

My PC is 7 years old and can almost produce better looking visuals than my 360 (although the frame rate suffers due to the slow cpu).

My current PC monitor is 19" and does a max res of 1280x1080. It sits on a standard compter desk and has an office style chair in front of it.

My 360 sits next to my 32" LCD TV and I have an armchair in front of it.

I will always prefer playing games on my TV/console.


Sitting at a computer desk is old school PVB...I am sitting in front of my 50 inch LCD TV on my couch playing PC. Wireless keyboards cost 19.99 now. Same with the mice. And I have my 360 controller hooked to the PC if I need it. I just run a simple patch cable from my PC video card (all video cards have dual outputs, one for the LCD TV and one for the PC Monitor) which runs both my video and sound (HDMI Cable) to my home theatre system.

So long story short my PC is my console. Steam has a "Big Picture" mode designed specifically for big screen TV's. So I have all the benefits of a console but with the power of my PC. It's also running 5.1 surround sound as well. With Steam making game installations a no brainer, there is no way I would go back to my 360 unless I had to.

There is no way I would sit in front of a PC monitor anymore. Our LCD TV's work perfectly. :)
Author:  Pug50 [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
The big advantage to consoles I can see is that if you buy a console at the start of it's life, it will run every game for 5-10 years in a predictable, playable and stable manner.

You can play games on a new $500 PC now but new games in 5 years would be a touch ropey or completely unplayable.

This is ignoring the fact that many people's PCs are quickly bunged up and made crashy by unwanted software, misconfiguration and malware, regardless of how powerful it it.
Author:  Pepperpete [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Pug50 wrote:
The big advantage to consoles I can see is that if you buy a console at the start of it's life, it will run every game for 5-10 years in a predictable, playable and stable manner.

You can play games on a new $500 PC now but new games in 5 years would be a touch ropey or completely unplayable.

This is ignoring the fact that many people's PCs are quickly bunged up and made crashy by unwanted software, misconfiguration and malware, regardless of how powerful it it.


Pug the upgrade cycle has ground to a hault. My system is not new at all yet it runs ACM at 120fps without a hitch. Have you used STEAM for game playing? I haven't run into a single fault There is no more "installing" or having to reconfigure everything. Steam pretty much does it all for you. It's like having a console in a PC. I highly recommend trying it out.

I had a number of friends that couldn't get out of that old school mindset that things would be complicated and difficult. It's not anymore. It simply works. And my buddies that I've convinced would never go back.
Author:  Pug50 [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Is there any PC that was built the same time as the 360 in 2005 (let alone a $500 one) that would play A:CM decently even at HDTV resolutions?

And is Steam so nice and reliable and easy even if the underlying OS is crash prone or overwhelmed with crappy software/malware?
Author:  Pepperpete [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Pug50 wrote:
Is there any PC that was released the same time as the 360 in 2005 (let alone a $500 one) that would play A:CM decently even at HDTV resolutions?

And is Steam so nice and reliable and easy even if the underlying OS is crash prone or overwhelmed with crappy software/malware?


Prices only came down in the last few years Pug. A system like that back then would have been thousands. A prebuilt quality system like the Dell X51 is $699 and would last for years down the road. And building it yourself is way cheaper than even that (not to mention it's not just used for games).

What operating system do you use? Windows 7 causes no grief like what you describe. They have optimized that OS towards amazing stability. I literally have not had a crash with that OS. Either have my friends. Seriously have you really looked into PC's lately? They are not the beasts of pain they once where. And yes Steam is THAT good. I have a PS3, Xbox360 and my PC. With all three hooked up to my entertainment center, it's the PC that wins out now. It wasn't always like that though.

(By the way my computer is 6 years old. I upgraded the video card this year. It cost me $100 for the new card...I will NOT need to upgrade anything else for a long dang time)
Author:  gt3stuntman [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
All that screen-tearing on the console versions is unacceptable.

PC players can fix it, but those on consoles don't have that luxury.
Author:  Pug50 [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Is there any PC built from components for ANY price from 2005 that would run ACM decently at pseudo-1080p? And yes - I know the point is that upgrading by punters and the steady improvement in price/performance means that PC versions of games are more ambitious in their graphics, and the console versions are artificially constrained by their hardware. That's kinda the point: I damn well hope a PC bought today won't do a decent job of running a PC game in 5-10 years without major upgrades because that would mean PC games had stagnated technically.

I use Windows 7 and my PC is immaculate. But I know of loads of Win7 installs that are totally minced.

Regardless of cost, for most people a console is better value and less hassle for playing games. If you want better graphics then pay for it (or upgrade/replace more often), and be savvy enough to have a reliable, clean Windows install.

That's exactly what I've done, but I'm gonna play it on 360 too - it doesn't bother my aesthetic or technical sensibilities to slum it ... ;)
Author:  PVB [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ACM PC vs Xbox 360. Holy crap what a difference...
Steam isn't perfect.

Just check their forums for tech savvy people having issues.

A friend of mine has built several PCs, but has been unable to install Steam on any of them.

PC vs console boils down to two things; money and know how.
Author:  gt3stuntman [ Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Let's also take a look at the demo/final comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z2qVebxlUo

Talk about bait and switch.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/