View Full Version : *sob* WHY?? OH, WHY??*sob*

Qui-GONE Jinn
06-08-2001, 04:50 PM
ok, I know that I'm like a week to late for the posting of this, but why the heck did OWK.net have to close??? is there a reason at all? wasn't Kurgan going to jazz it up and cover it for the X-Box?

Kurgan? Kurgan, are you there?

I miss the old forums... we had so many great discussions..

ok, I know I didn't post so damn often, especially at the end, but I really liked that community...it was not so darn BIG, like this one.

any answers?

06-08-2001, 04:52 PM
good to see you back, i think everyone is here...

the forums have been backed up- never fear

kurgs is taking a break and so i vag i think

so you'll have to make do with us!


06-08-2001, 04:57 PM
Obi Wan sucks....thats why its goin on the x-box!

06-08-2001, 04:58 PM
Hey were have you been! :)
Check out the OBW.net thread. There are some answers there...

06-09-2001, 02:05 AM
Agreed. From this day forth, everything that sucks shall go on x-box.

06-09-2001, 02:32 AM
I guess we'll all have to get an X-box so we can laugh and point at how much the games suck compared to what they would have been on PC. :rolleyes:

Angry Drunken Ewok
06-09-2001, 03:37 AM
I'll have to disagree with you guys about the x-box sucking even though the computer is the best 'system' out and ALWAYS will be...if you look at the x-box's graphics espeacially WWF:Raw is War they're pretty impressive for a home console

06-09-2001, 03:45 AM
sure will.... feel like buying me one ki adi? :P

06-09-2001, 10:06 AM
The x-box sounded cool when it was announced....1GHz cause we didnt have near that then. Then they decreased it to 733Mhz which sucked cause by the time it was to come out that is nothing!

06-09-2001, 05:51 PM
RAVE, it went down to 600 Mhz

and btw, I bet we will have 2.4 by the time X-Box comes out :P

06-09-2001, 06:27 PM
LOL....it went down more...hehe :) , and like u said, PCs will be more than triple the speed by the time it comes out!

06-09-2001, 08:48 PM
Yeah, but XBox is intended for a different market. It's much cheaper than a PC and will not have a behemoth of an OS to run, like PCs do.

06-09-2001, 09:48 PM
Yeah, despite the processor being slower than a high end pc, the X-Box will be more powerful for games for a period of time. This is because PCs need to deal with the operating system and numerous other programs running in the background when you are playing a game. The X-Box doesn't have this problem so ALL of it's power is put into the game. Here, check out these X-Box screens and tell me if they are bad.
Those are all in-game shots too.


06-10-2001, 01:53 AM
mmmmmmm and i'd be saying theyre looking very nice.....

06-10-2001, 08:05 AM
Yes but do u see PC developers making games for 1.5Ghz GeForce 3 minimum.....no! Because they have to go up gradually so that people are able to keep up and upgrade their computers in time! If they did, they could probably have games near real life! And what the hell are u on about....PC minimum game specs are no where near the crap boxes maximum yet!

[ June 10, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainRAVE ]

06-10-2001, 03:48 PM
I actually thought I'd posted to this thread - I know I wrote a post, but it obviously never appeared. Oh well, can't remember exactly what I said, now.

Those X-Box screenshots do look very good. Have any of you seen the ones for Unreal Championship? Or Maelstrom? Or Max Payne? Those are all appearing on the X-Box too. There is no doubt the X-Box can push around the pixels.

My only concern would be the gameplay. The games could look fantastic, but if they don't play well, if the controls are bad, if the interface sucks, then the X-Box will be dead in the water. We shall have to wait and see until it launches.

BTW, does the X-Box support FSAA? Because I haven't seen any screenshots where FSAA is used at all.

And have you noticed that these threads always end up completely off-topic? :D

06-10-2001, 04:14 PM
I've noticed all the threads end up off the topic and never seem to go back :mad: !!! And i agree, they are very nice graphics. Shame their for the crap box, but by the time they make games for the PC that will fill up the crap boxes specs (733 Mhz or whatever crap it is) they'll be double as good! :D

06-10-2001, 07:41 PM
Well, I guess that is the nice thing about consoles is that every single system has the same exact capabilities. The developers don't have to worry about older, weaker systems. I'm not trying to say that computers can't beat the xbox's graphics or any other consoles (obviously they must be better because the games and technologies are created on a PC). But, the vast majority of computers can not beat the graphics the xbox can put out. Also, in order to get the ability to have those type of graphics on your computer, you'd have to shell out thousands of dollars while $300 can get you a state-of-the-art console. Don't get me wrong, I love PCs and I would much rather play most games on a pc, but consoles definitely have their place too.


06-11-2001, 08:18 PM
Well, I've been thinking a lot about where the technology is taking us recently, and I'm now in two minds. I think we are going to become more and more mobile as the years go by.

With current advances in technology, and making mobile systems cheaper, we will find less and less need to tie ourselves down to sitting in a chair staring at a 19 inch monitor (or however big your display is).

IMHO, the key factors preventing more of us from using alternatives to the PC for gaming, are:

1. A portable hi-res display of appropriate quality which looks like nothing more than an ordinary pair of spectacles.
2. A truly intuitive control system that is as flexible as a keyboard/mouse combo without the unweildy size.

The rest of the mobile tech is essentially there, although it needs to (and will shortly) get smaller, while increasing in power.

If these issues can be fully resolved, and I could play games on a portable unit nearly as powerful as my PC and no larger than a portable CD player, with a display like a pair of wrap-around glasses, and a hand-held controller that gives me access to as many functions as the keyboard, I probably wouldn't sit in front of my PC to play games.

As for consoles only costing $300, yeah, sure. But that's if you don't have to buy a TV to go with it (approx. 150 ($200+) for a decent 14" colour model). ;) And if you buy a TV in the UK, you have to pay an annual TV licence, which is over 100 ($150). Yes, I know most people have them anyway - but there is still an associated cost that never gets mentioned. So I thought I'd mention it.


06-11-2001, 08:35 PM
I agree with you Stormhammer...just take a look at the Gameboy Advance for a prime example. The technology is that palm size unit is equal to (or is some cases greater) the power of the SNES console. So, I guess it's safe to say that handhelds are about 10 years behind set-top boxes. I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I guess all that should be said is games are games. Whether or not they are played on a console, PC, handheld, or whatever. They are all basically the same and you can do similar things on all of them. I think the console v. PC debate is stupid because like you said, everything will probably converge at some point or another. I mean, the same type of argument went on with PCs and Macintoshes. They used to be quite a bit different, now nearly everything in them is the same equipment. (Swoosh wonders what he is talking about). Ok, I better go now :)